[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]