W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2003

[CSS3-Border] Border-radius (was: Negative Border Widths)

From: Ernest Cline <ernestcline@mindspring.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 10:07:36 -0500
Message-ID: <410-220031232415736265@mindspring.com>
To: "Dris" <dris86@cox.net>, www-style@w3.org

> [Original Message]
> From: Dris <dris86@cox.net>
> To: <www-style@w3.org>
> Date: 12/24/2003 2:24:43 AM
> Subject: Negative Border Widths
> This may or may not have been discussed before.  I just had a hunch 
> about border widths.
> Specifying a positive width means applying the border in a measure of 
> units outside the padding.  My thoughts say that specifying a negative 
> width would apply the border along the inside of the padding.  This 
> might provide an alternate way of working with the box model for 
> designers who are confused by it, or it could add more confusion.
> I don't know how this would fit into CSS3.  I don't even know how it 
> would fit into CSS2, because other logic might say the total dimensions 
> of the box would have to be decreased.  One could even go crazy and say 
> the border color would have to be inverted, citing some weird physics 
> formulae (I should hope nobody would look *that* far into it).
> Most likely, this will be tossed into the "...right, no," pile.

CSS1, CSS2, CSS2.1, and the current draft of CSS3 Box all say
that 'border-width' and 'padding' may not be negative.  Since
allowing negative values could cause content to be obscured,
that  makes sense.

However, the proposed 'border-radius' properties of CSS3 Border
could also cause content to be obscured.  The simplest solution
would be to limit the maximum value(s) to the sum of the
appropriate values of 'border-width' and 'padding'.  Another
solution that would allow the inner radius to touch the corner would
be to say that if the specified value(s) for one of the 'border-radius'
properties would cause the inner edge of the border to cross the
content then the computed value(s) must be reduced proportionately
so that does not occur.
Received on Wednesday, 24 December 2003 10:09:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:10 UTC