And lo on Wed, 07 Nov 2007 12:34:50 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>> And lo on Wed, 07 Nov 2007 09:36:17 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull>  
>> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> Well, that'll work... but surely there's some W3C compliant way of  
>>> doing this transparently without such low-level hacks?
>>  This is a W3C compliant way - HTML+CSS, what's not compliant about it?  
>> The only thing you can moan about is the use of style in a strict.
>
> It just seems a pitty to have to litter the code with style information  
> that should be in a seperate stylesheet, that's all.
>
> What I *could* do is this:
>
>    style {padding: 1em;}
>    style style {padding: 2em;}
>    style style style {padding: 3em;}
>    etc.
>
> But that still seems a crying shame...

Wrong way round. You could have a fixed css file containing the following

html {margin:20px;}
span {border: red 1px solid;}
span {padding:20px;}
span span {padding:18px;}
span span span {padding:16px;}
...

Assuming ten levels max and you would at least have a fixed height for the  
equation you're displaying

>>> (I still don't understand why having a large box inside doesn't cause  
>>> the containing box to enlarge itself...)
>>  It does if you use a block rather then an inline element.
>
> But then it adds unwanted linebreaks.

Yep life's a bitch.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message