W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2013

Re: [css-device-adapt] MSFT feedback on latest editor's draft

From: Rune Lillesveen <rune@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:25:22 +0100
Message-ID: <CANz6XvS876g8aNqbmLcZ1zR=x-a1xJkmPNCHbq4xGCpKrwVB=w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matt Rakow <marakow@microsoft.com>
Cc: Kenneth Rohde Christiansen <kenneth.christiansen@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Matt Rakow <marakow@microsoft.com> wrote:

> Re: "auto" -- perhaps I was just misinterpreting the constraining procedure.  I think I was getting hung up on the usage of "width" to mean resolved width, and since there is no explicit statement about what to do when "width" is unresolved after the procedure completes.  Perhaps it would be helpful to use "resolved-width" as the term and add a statement to the end along the lines of "If both resolved-width and resolved-height are still undefined, the actual viewport width and height are selected by the UA"?

Steps 6-8 ensures that the width and height are always resolved to px
lengths at the end of the constraining procedure.

Rune Lillesveen
Received on Tuesday, 10 December 2013 08:25:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:37 UTC