Bruno Fassino wrote:
On Jan 8, 2008 10:53 AM wrote:
Bruno Fassino wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmmm, I always thought that auto kind of carried the idea of
shrink-to-fit?
width:auto has much different meanings, depending on the value of other
properties.
So, basically, 'auto' means
On Jan 9, 2008 10:43 AM, david wrote:
Bruno Fassino wrote:
How does the available width take part in that computation beyond
functioning as the maximum width?
It takes part acting as a maximum for the computation, as you say :-)
I think they are simply cases where a different behavior has
Bruno Fassino wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmmm, I always thought that auto kind of carried the idea of
shrink-to-fit?
width:auto has much different meanings, depending on the value of other
properties.
So, basically, 'auto' means make it the full available width, but if
you don't
On Jan 8, 2008 10:53 AM wrote:
Bruno Fassino wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmmm, I always thought that auto kind of carried the idea of
shrink-to-fit?
width:auto has much different meanings, depending on the value of other
properties.
So, basically, 'auto' means make it the
On Jan 6, 2008, at 12:35 AM, Bruno Fassino wrote:
With a long caption, the text does not wrap to the width of the
image, but that is expected.
Yes. To always get a fit to the width of the image (or to a wider
unbreakable word, if any) there is:
width: -moz-min-content;
Good point.
Ingo Chao wrote:
Bruno Fassino wrote:
... Unfortunately this shrink-to-fit effect can only be
obtained as a side effect of other properties ...
Interesting aspect.
Is there a need for properties that transport such a concept like
shrink-to-fit more directly, without these implications
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmmm, I always thought that auto kind of carried the idea of
shrink-to-fit?
width:auto has much different meanings, depending on the value of other
properties.
For block, non replaced elements in normal flow [1] it roughly means: use
all the available width of the
On Jan 5, 2008, at 10:11 AM, Bruno Fassino wrote:
Yes, I think there is such a need.
There are mention of (CSS3?) proposals about this in
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=311415
I've not tested, but Firefox 3 beta probably has a
width: -moz-fit-content;
That works as
Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:
On Jan 5, 2008, at 10:11 AM, Bruno Fassino wrote:
I've not tested, but Firefox 3 beta probably has a
width: -moz-fit-content;
That works as expected: the block element is shrinked to fit
the content
http://dev.l-c-n.com/_temp/moz-fit-content.html
Very
Hello,
I am trying to enclose an img tag in a div or span wrapper; and I want the
wrapper to resize automatically to the image size (i.e., I don't want to
specify a hard-coded size). Using float:left or float:right, this works. But
how do I manage it without a float?
For instance:
1.This
On Jan 4, 2008 2:02 PM, Gautam Patel wrote:
I am trying to enclose an img tag in a div or span wrapper; and I want
the wrapper to resize automatically to the
image size (i.e., I don't want to specify a hard-coded size). Using
float:left or float:right, this works. But how do I
manage it
Bruno Fassino wrote:
... Unfortunately this shrink-to-fit effect can only be
obtained as a side effect of other properties ...
Interesting aspect.
Is there a need for properties that transport such a concept like
shrink-to-fit more directly, without these implications that properties
like
Gautam Patel wrote:
I am trying to enclose an img tag in a div or span wrapper; and I want
the wrapper to resize automatically to the image size (i.e., I don't want to
specify a hard-coded size). Using float:left or float:right, this works. But
how do I manage it without a float?
Your
Ingo Chao wrote:
Bruno Fassino wrote:
... Unfortunately this shrink-to-fit effect can only be
obtained as a side effect of other properties ...
Interesting aspect.
Is there a need for properties that transport such a concept like
shrink-to-fit more directly, without these implications that
14 matches
Mail list logo
