This is relatively minor, but I was curious as to the rationale behind the behavior I am seeing. If you have an element, you can choose to make it “fixed-width” or not. If the element is not fixed-width, two more options become available: “Minimum width (% of current width)” and “Apply a max width when the page is stretched”. This is useful for designing responsive sites, as it essentially serves as the upper and lower bound of an element’s resizing.
However, assume you have an element that you ONLY want to increase in size. If the page gets smaller, you want it to stay the same. If you try to set the “Minimum width” field to 100, it won’t let you. The highest you can set it is 99%.
Interestingly enough, it seems that such a restriction doesn’t apply to the “maximum width” field. Not only can you set the maximum width to 100%, you can actually set it to values less than 100% as well, which would mean that the element’s maximum width is less than its predetermined width.
Given that this seems like a semi-common use case, why is there a cap of 99% on the minimum width? Is this a bug, or is there some programmatic reason?