W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2000

RE: box-sizing alternative

From: Joe Hewitt <joe@joehewitt.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 13:21:25 -0500
To: "'L. David Baron'" <dbaron@fas.harvard.edu>, <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000201bf82e1$ca39c7a0$31cfb326@zenimax.com>
> There are a number of problems with this proposal:
>  * It does not work well with the cascade:  if an author wants the
>    contents of an element to take up a certain area, and the
> user has a
>    different padding or border specified (think, perhaps, of images in
>    links), then the content will occupy a different size than
> the author
>    expects.

I don't understand why this is a problem.  User-defined stylesheets are
always going to boink up the author's desired style, so why is my proposal
any different from the way author/user style conflicts work now in CSS?

>  * It makes it impossible to specify a size for the content
> of an element,
>    whereas in the current system it is possible both to specify the
>    size for the content box, or, with extra markup, the size for the
>    margin box (however, see below).

Makes it impossible?  How do you figure that?  My entire argument describes
exactly how you would specify the size for the content of an element, and
the margin as well.  Did you read what I wrote?

> I think the problems you mention could be solved instead by:
>  * A new value for the 'overflow' property called 'grow', that acts
>    like the original proposal for 'visible' did.

Are we both referring to the same thing?  This sounds like a solution to
another problem described in some recent mozilla newsgroup posts, but has
nothing to do with what I'm describing.

>  * A 'box-sizing' or 'border-width' property

The basis of my argument was that 'box-sizing' is not an intuitive solution,
and this is a better solution.

I'm a bit confused by your reply, David.  Are you referring to my post
entitled "box-sizing alternative" ?
Received on Tuesday, 29 February 2000 13:17:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:26:53 UTC