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 11:03:26 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <20000229190326.7138.qmail@web903.mail.yahoo.com>
To: www-style@w3.org
--- Joe Hewitt <joe@joehewitt.com> wrote:
> > 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, 
  ----------------

Not the issue. The users preferences (and frequently physical needs) are
paramount.

In any can user-defined styles do not 'boink up' anything; I use mine
quite happily without any problems. 

> so why is my
> proposal
> any different from the way author/user style conflicts work now in CSS?

Because they work fine at present.

> >  * 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.

What isn't intuitive about it?

=====
----------------------------------------------------------
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 14:03:27 GMT

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