Perfectly. Thanks. Makes sense. And I'll take "close" as a personal
accomplishment no matter how far it really was. :-).
On Saturday, August 8, 2015, Philippe Wittenbergh <e...@l-c-n.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 8, 2015, at 22:36, Tom Livingston <tom...@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > Because 100% couldn't be calculated because the parent was a percentage?
> > '100% of what' kind of thing?
>
> Close… :-)
>
> The physical parent's width is known and can be computed, no problem
> (parent in the source; in this case the `<li>`); in “normal” circumstances,
> the percentage width on the child can be computed. However, in your case,
> there are some more (virtual) elements between the `a` and the `li`.
>
> from your original message
> > a{
> > display: table-cell; <<<<<<<< this
>
> Per css 2.1:17.2.1, browsers will generate the missing elements as
> anonymous table objects (<tr>,<tbody><table>); that <table> element has a
> width of `auto` - for tables that means the width depends on the width of
> the cell(s). Then the percentage width on the `a` cannot be resolved
> (computed); it is undefined - see CSS2.1:10.2.
>
> But if you set the width of the `a` to `inherit`, then yes everything
> falls in place, as the width of the `li` is already computed, and that is
> the value that cascades through.
>
> (hope this is readable English)
>
> Philippe
> --
> Philippe Wittenbergh
> http://l-c-n.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Tom Livingston | Senior Front End Developer | Media Logic |
ph: 518.456.3015x231 | fx: 518.456.4279 | medialogic.com
#663399
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
