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 14:16:32 -0500
To: "'Matthew Brealey'" <thelawnet@yahoo.com>, <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000101bf82e9$7d638c10$31cfb326@zenimax.com>
> 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

You're dancing around the issues in my post.  First of all, if "width"
refers to the width of the content, why is it not called "content-width"?
And why is there no property for explicitly setting the width of the
"entire" box?  That's the whole point of my suggestions.

And your "1,2,3 challenge" isn't quite that simple.  Did you read the rest
of my explanation?  You have failed to tell the user where their padding,
border, and width will actually apply because you haven't explained
"box-sizing".  If you fail to inform them of "box-sizing" then you are
leaving them no ability to explicitly set the size of the entire box without
having to manually subtract padding and border-width.  Not to say that this
is something difficult, but it is an unecessary step for something as simple
as making a box a certain width.

IE4/IE5 and NN4 both interpret "width" as being the width of the entire box,
not just the content, and for good reason.  Semantically, this is what
"width" seems to imply.


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

How is the syntax of my clip example incorrect?
Received on Tuesday, 29 February 2000 14:12:50 GMT

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