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 19:46:13 +0300
Message-ID: <A35E2040C17F0C48B941B8F4D0DF122908E2AE@ermhs.Athens.BrokerSystems.gr>
To: "Rod Dav4is" <dav4is@bigfoot.com>
Cc: <www-style@w3.org>


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

> 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.

I thought we where having this discussion with positioned block elements
in mind :-)

> 
> > 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)

There is no answer to that.


> 
> 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.

Agreed. So, back to my original question, can the Multi-column layout be
used (or modified) to solve this?
Maybe that's where we should focus on coming posts in this thread.

Kindest regards,

Manos
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2001 12:47:33 GMT

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