Sorry, I'm dumb... just do (pWidth * .9).round();
On Feb 17, 9:27 am, Iain <[email protected]> wrote: > just do some math. once the textarea is injected do: > > var pWidth = textarea.getParent().getSize().x; > var tWidth = ( ( pWidth * .9 ) * 100 ).round(); > > textarea.setStyle( 'width', tWidth ); > > Anyways, I still think this could be done with CSS and I think you're > just over-complicating it. > > On Feb 17, 9:05 am, ryan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > You are :) > > We're writing an inline html editor, so we dont know the width of the > > textarea... and there can be multiple per page. > > > On Feb 17, 4:34 pm, Michal Charemza <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I really think that it is possible by adding a class to the wrapper. > > > Say if your css is: > > > > #container {width: 40em} > > > .wrapper, textarea { width: 90%; } > > > .wrapper textarea { width: 100%; } > > > > And your original HTML is > > > > <div id="container"> > > > <textarea></textarea> > > > </div> > > > > Before any JS is run, the textarea's width will be 90% of the width of > > > container, due to the second CSS rule. > > > > Then you wrap the textarea with a div of class "wrapper". Then the DOM > > > will be like: > > > > <div id="container"> > > > <div class="wrapper"><textarea></textarea></div> > > > </div> > > > > When the wrapper is injected into the page, its width will be 90% of > > > the container, due to the second CSS rule. Then the textarea's width > > > will be 100% of the wrapper, due to the third CSS rule. This will be > > > equal to 90% of the width of the container, exactly how it was before > > > the textarea was wrapped. > > > > Or am I missing something? > > > > Michal. > > > > On 17 Feb 2009, at 16:05, ryan wrote: > > > > > As its wrapping the texarea with a div through javascript. > > > > > On Feb 17, 1:27 pm, Michal <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> There is an undocumented function in Fx or Fx.CSS that parses the CSS > > > >> files (used in Fx.Morph)... you might be able to use that? Still, I > > > >> am > > > >> curious as to why the CSS solution won't work...? > > > > >> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 1:23 PM, ryan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>> Yeah, which we're not... it doesnt work in this case :( > > > >>> Thats what I thought would work too... seems strange that there is > > > >>> no > > > >>> way to access the original style sheet information?
