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: Rod Dav4is <dav4is@bigfoot.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 12:09:10 -0400
Message-ID: <3B2F7926.EE476C63@bigfoot.com>
To: Manos Batsis <m.batsis@bsnet.gr>
CC: www-style@w3.org


Manos Batsis wrote in part:

> Yes you are right but the problem remains. In a current browser, this
> will render your .myClass elements one under the other,

I think this effect comes only with text. Things with inherent dimensions,
like images, should render side-by-side, I think. If they fit.

> 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.

And legacy UAs will display the blocks positioned correctly (perhaps!), but
without their margins, borders, or padding.

So, which is more important: Position? (your proposal) Decorations? (like
borders, margins, padding -- my proposal)

I submit that proper position without the intended decorations can be very
confusing. Consider two columns of text. Without some sort of gutter to
separate them when arranged adjacently, one cannot tell where one ends and
the other begins.

-R.
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2001 12:09:29 GMT

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