W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2001

RE: May have to do with "column layout" WAS:RE: Proposal of alternative to CSS3 box-sizing property

From: Manos Batsis <m.batsis@bsnet.gr>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 17:57:16 +0300
Message-ID: <A35E2040C17F0C48B941B8F4D0DF122908E2A8@ermhs.Athens.BrokerSystems.gr>
To: "Rod Dav4is" <dav4is@bigfoot.com>
Cc: <www-style@w3.org>

Hallo Rod,

Thanks for the reply. To tell you the truth, I like your approach better
(I always use shorthands my self). I don't know if this is in the
current working draft proposal (?) though and I can't check thanks to
some maintenance/upgrade procedures on my LAN. 

But although your syntax is what I would also prefer using, it has some
disadvantages. One of them may be backwards compatibility, because you
are changing the syntax of "width" or "height" directly. It may be quite
possible that a browser may not be able to interpret the attribute at
all using this additional "outside". In short, an additional attribute
set like "include-width" and "include-height" is cleaner and easier to
apply over a transition period (witch of course is constant these days)
among browsers.


Kindest regards,

Manos

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rod Dav4is [mailto:dav4is@bigfoot.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2001 9:45 PM
> To: Manos Batsis
> Subject: Re: May have to do with "column layout" WAS:RE: Proposal of
> alternative to CSS3 box-sizing property
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manos Batsis wrote:
> 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Rod Dav4is [mailto:dav4is@bigfoot.com]
> >
> > > Comments?
> > >
> >
> > IMHO, the current box model has the disadvantage of not letting the
> > developer decide if he wants to include the margin/border 
> width/height
> > in it. You will probably say that when something is of 
> "display:block",
> > it's behavior is to adjust to the available width. But what 
> if I want a
> > more complicated design? I will have to use tables and destroy my
> > documents markup for presentation purposes.
> >
> > Ok, positioning is good but doesn't have anything to do 
> with my problem.
> > Float? Sure, helps a little. But when I want to put three 
> or more blocks
> > in the same screen height, on next to the other, I will 
> have to either
> > make their width fixed (thus, forgetting all about my 
> "liquid" design)
> > or put them to three calls of a table, making my HTML 
> looking like HTML
> > 3.2: all about presentation.
> >
> > A possible solution, would be an additional property (for 
> not changing
> > the current size algorithms and keep backwards compatibility):
> >
> > .myClass {
> >  width:20%;
> >  border:2px groove #f3f3f3;
> >  margin:5%;
> >
> >  [...]
> >
> > }
> >
> > Now, if I replace [...] with
> >
> >  include-width:border;
> >
> > I get four DIVs that can be positioned like DTs in a "row". 
> The border
> > is included in the width and my margin fits perfectly.
> >
> > I could also change the rules as:
> >
> >  margin:10px;
> >  include-width:border, margin;
> >
> >
> > And have the same functionality with fixed margins.
> >
> > Of course an additional "include-height" attribute would 
> work the same.
> >
> > NOTE that Microsoft has already seen the need for such 
> functionality and
> > has "invented" dynamic properties. A module like this one 
> would make the
> > functionality available to more browsers in a compatible 
> way. I really
> > hope  someone above is reading this.
> >
> > Does the proposed CSS3 module about "column layout" solve 
> this? Can I
> > apply borders and more in a column or can I put more blocks in it?
> >
> > Kindest regards,
> >
> > Manos
> >
> 
> But wouldn't it be much easier to have:
> 
>      .myClass {
>       width:25% outside;
>       border:2px groove #f3f3f3;
>       margin:5%;
>       float:left;
>      }
> 
> to place four boxes of identical width side-by-side to exactly fill a
> container? You can change margins, borders and padding units 
> and lengths at
> will and they will continue to fit -- until the content width 
> goes to zero,
> that is.
> -R.
> 
> 
Received on Sunday, 17 June 2001 10:58:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:09 GMT