W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 1999

Re: Body-indent

From: Matthew Brealey <thelawnet@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 01:15:37 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <19991108091537.10735.rocketmail@web904.mail.yahoo.com>
To: www-style@w3.org
--- Jan Roland Eriksson <rex@css.nu> wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Nov 1999 03:35:17 -0800 (PST), you wrote:
> >--- Jan Roland Eriksson <rex@css.nu> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 3 Nov 1999 19:39:08 -0500 (EST), you
> wrote:
> >> There are simple reasons as to why you would not
> >> want to use the margin property for this...
> >Not to mention the fact that it sets up a block for
> >the element that is of the wrong size.
> That's one thing it does _not_ do. (I take it to
> mean that you are
> referring to the visible 'width' of the examples?)
I think it would.

The actual width of the block is the rectangle going
round all the element. However, in this case, the
negative text-indent means that the width is taken as
that of the narrowest bit.


BODY {width: 600px}

DIV {margin-left: 100px;
text-indent: -100px}

By the box model equation, since width: auto and
margin-right is 0 (initial value), it follows that
width = 500px.

However, this is not the actual width since the actual
width is 600px.

Next if you have:
DIV P {width: 50%}

This results in a P of width 250px rather than 300px
as it should be.

What I meant by the block was the containing block for
subsequent elements.

> >For example, I use a script that does browser
> >detection to serve my style sheets,
> Unsafe to start with. I for one could easily fool
> any sniffer, and I
> take it that even "ignorant" users could fall into
> the same "trap" from
> just not knowing how to configure their browsers.

I've never known any ignorant user manage to change
their userAgent string.

> >It is true, however, that the fact that CSS is so
> >complicated hampers takeup.
> Exactly, and that is why I would like to argue for a
> "time out" to give
> room for users, authors and implementors to catch up
> on what we already
> have available. CSS1 in it self contains so many
> wonderful properties
> that can be used in a compliant browser (e.g. Opera)

Opera, compliant? I think not.

> History tells us that it is wise to ask one self the
> following question,
> over and over again...
>   "Why do I _really_ need this 'X' feature if my
> real
>    target is that I want to communicate with some
> one
>    else?"
> The answer to that can be twofold of course, as
> in...
>   "Yes 'X' is required to properly convey my idea"
> ...or...
>   "No, 'X' would be just another 'gizmo'..."

It may not be _required_ to have the particular gizmo,
but fancier designs make the message more effective -
you do not need to have all the fancy things in
magazines that they do, but I know that when I pick up
a magazine (or web page) that lacks these fancy things
I am off-put, and may not purchase it.


I think that many of the problems with poor support
will improve. It looks as though Netscape 5 should be
the first usable version of Netscape for CSS, and
although IE 5 still has some bugs, it is possible to
get some nice effects on it.

I believe that the worst of problems are over - (I
hope) the lessons of experience have been learned
(i.e. it is not a good idea to try and implement all
of CSS 1 and CSS-P in your first release; it is a good
idea to read the whole CSS spec rather than just the
juicy bits, etc.), and so it is perhaps a little late
to be thinking of cutting CSS down to size.

From Matthew Brealey (http://members.tripod.co.uk/lawnet (for law)or http://members.tripod.co.uk/lawnet/WEBFRAME.HTM (for CSS))
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
Received on Monday, 8 November 1999 04:15:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:26:52 UTC