>----- Oorspronkelijk bericht ----- >Van: Vincent Hennebert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Manuel Mall a écrit : >> >> My understanding of the spec is that for "top" and "bottom" percentages >> only make sense if the containing block has a fixed height. If the >> containing block has a variable height percentages are suppose to be >> ignored and the property value assumed to be "auto". > >I second that, see the CSS2 spec [1]: "For 'top' and 'bottom', if the >height of the containing block is not specified explicitly (i.e., it >depends on content height), the percentage value is interpreted like >'auto'." > >[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-CSS2-19980512/visuren.html#position-props CSS doesn't have the last word here. See the definition for the 'left' property (XSL-FO 1.1 - §7.6.5) all the way at the bottom. In XSL, these are interpreted relative to the prevailing coördinate system. Not to the containing block as in CSS, but to the nearest ancestor reference area. I'd think a similar substitution holds for the definition of a <percentage> value a bit higher up, so that "the offset is a percentage of the /nearest ancestor reference area/'s width" Agreed? Cheers, Andreas
