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

Re: box-sizing alternative

From: Matthew Brealey <thelawnet@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:57:19 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <20000229185719.5360.qmail@web903.mail.yahoo.com>
To: www-style@w3.org
--- Joe Hewitt <joe@joehewitt.com> wrote:
> No, the box-sizing thing doesn't do what I want.  The problem with it is
> that it is not intuitive.  Say you are trying to explain this to someone
> new
> to CSS.  

Then you would say:
1. Width sets the width of the content
2. Padding sets the width of the padding
3. Border-width sets the width of the border

Not too challenging is it?

> B. Using 4 "width"/"height" regions
> 
> The inside of a box has 3 sizable regions: "border", "padding", and
> "content".  You can set the size of each of these regions explicitly if
> you
> want control of each of them.  If you merely want to set the size of the
> entire box, use "width".
> 
> If "width" is defined, and the physical content of the box, or
> "content-width",  exceeds ("width"-("border"+"padding")) then "width"
> has
> two choices:  if "content-grow: expand" then "width" will expand to fit
> it's
> content.  If "content-grow: clip" then the content will be clipped
> within
> this region: "rect(0px, width, auto, 0px)".
> 
> In my humble opinion, B is a better solution.  

Ahem (and BTW, what's wrong with using the predefined overflow (and
getting the syntax of clip correct?)).

=====
----------------------------------------------------------
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!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
Received on Tuesday, 29 February 2000 13:59:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:04 GMT