OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

cgmo-webcgm message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [cgmo-webcgm] convert-to-absolute [was: Re[2]: [cgmo-webcgm] Style properties]


At 10:27 AM 5/18/2005 -0400, Benoit Bezaire wrote:
>Hi Lofton,
>
>Please note that section 5.4.1.3 still has a TO DO. I'm not sure we
>have the concept of Used Values in WebCGM.

Neither am I.

>I couldn't come up with an example.
>
>The CSS 2.1 text is this:
>"Computed values can be relative to each other; for example a width
>could be set as a percentage, which is dependent on the containing
>block's width. The used value is the result of taking the computed
>value and resolving these dependencies into a final absolute value
>used for the actual layout."

Yes, I read that too.  (IMO, the CSS2 text leaves something to be desired, 
in clarity.)


>Can you think of a scenario that would demonstrate we do have Used
>Values?

No, not in the sense of that above paragraph.


>In general, I think this sub issue is a very minor one and should be
>ignored for now. We may want to adjust the wording, but that can be
>done later (in my opinion).

I agree.  We can ignore it.  It was just momentary stumbling block as I was 
trying to understand this stuff.

Even if we do not address if/how Used Values fit into APS attributes and 
style properties, it would be nice to do something to the wording, so that 
it doesn't distract others as it did me.  I have no specific proposal at 
this time (just the unhelpful suggestion that some clarification would be 
nice).

-Lofton.


>--
>  Benoit   mailto:benoit@itedo.com
>
>
>Tuesday, May 17, 2005, 7:40:13 PM, Lofton wrote:
>
>LH> At 02:58 PM 5/17/2005 -0400, Benoit Bezaire wrote:
> >>[...]
> >>
> >>LH> Btw, do we have a contradiction within 5.4?  The 1st pgph of
> >>LH> 5.4.1.2 says, "[computed values] ... for example relative units (%)
> >>LH> are computed to absolute values (NVDC)."  But the 2nd pgph of
> >>LH> 5.4.1 says, "...then resolved into a value that is used for
> >>LH> inheritance(the computed value), then converted into an absolute
> >>LH> value if necessary(the used value), then..."  [...later
> >>LH> addition... I just checked CSS2 -- same confusing overloading of
> >>LH> the term "absolute" there.]
> >>I don't see the contradiction, could you explain.
>
>LH> -- 5.4.1.2:  "relative units are computed to absolute values", at the
>LH> Computed Value stage
>LH> -- 5.4.1:  "converted to an absolute value if necessary", at the Used 
>Value
>LH> stage
>
>LH> Having checked CSS2,
>LH> -- the first convert-to-absolute (5.4.1.2) refers to things like % to 
>NVDC.
>LH> -- the second convert-to-absolute (5.4.1) refers, for example, to things
>LH> that are defined as a percent of the actual display box to be used.
>
>LH> There isn't any contradiction.  But it's confusing (and that's the way 
>it's
>LH> written in CSS2).
>
>LH> -Lofton.




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]