Posted by dorayme on 12/23/06 05:33

In article <EJOdnVEBspmmLRHYnZ2dnUVZ_sGqnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"-Lost" <spam_ninjaREMOVEME@REMOVEMEcomcast.net> wrote:

> "Ben C" <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote in message
> news:slrneooq0f.m8l.spamspam@bowser.marioworld...
>
> >> The standards state that a floated box *must have* an explicit width
> >> assigned via the
> >> "width" property.
> >
> > Which standards and where does it say that?
> >
> >> Your "shrink-to-fit" theory may work in the quirkiest of situations, but
> >> it is not
> >> standard.
> >
> > It's not my theory, it's all in CSS 2.1 (which is a "draft
> > recommendation"). Which standard are you referring to?
>
> Oh boy, I hate this part. I hope I have not misunderstood, but:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visuren.html#floats
>
> Second paragraph.

Fair enough... this section might be better written. If you look
closely, there is mention of intrinsic width. Pictures (for which
floating was primarily introduced) have a natural (intrinsic
width). It may be a good idea to give a width to other non
picture/movie/... floated blocks but if you do not, there is a
default natural size, something that can be thought to be
"intrinsic" delivered by whatever content thre happens to be: the
amount of text, the size of the fonts, whether or not any <br>s
are used. Even in text there is official intrinsic width in that
words and phrases (think email and web addresses) dictate a
certain width to the floated box. So they will have, in any given
situation, an intrinsic width. So you don't absolutely have to
give an explicit one.

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]