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: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 14:47:18 +0300
Message-ID: <A35E2040C17F0C48B941B8F4D0DF122908E2AC@ermhs.Athens.BrokerSystems.gr>
To: "Rod Dav4is" <dav4is@bigfoot.com>
Cc: <www-style@w3.org>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rod Dav4is [mailto:dav4is@bigfoot.com]

>     No good. Max-width still applies (in legacy UAs) to the
> content-width. The resulting box total width (again, in 
> legacy UA) will
> be 50% (of container) + margins + borders + paddings.

Sheesh, I guess that was my morning coffee talking.


>  In a CSS3
> conforming UA the width will be (with box-sizing:border-box) 50% +
> margins. Still too wide to fit two of them side-by-side in a container
> if any margin at all is present.
>     My proposal would allow such side-by-side placement very easily:
> 
>      .myClass{
>       width:50% outside;
>       border:10px;
>      }
> 
>     Furthermore, under my proposal, you can change/add/delete margins,
> borders, padding at will without worry that the fit will be 
> compromised
> -- unless, of course, the dimensions of these cause the content to no
> longer fit in what's left over for content-width.


Yes you are right but the problem remains. In a current browser, this
will render your .myClass elements one under the other, thanks to that
"auto" that occurs when "width:50% outside" cannot be interpreted.

Allow me to change my previous proposal to something like this:

.myClass{
 width:50%;
 width-include:border(10px), margin(5%);
}


This way, border and margin width will only be interpreted if
width-include is known.

Kindest regards,

Manos
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2001 07:48:38 GMT

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