On 10/28/03 11:33 AM, "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU> wrote: > >> My statement is simple I don't like the content-box model! could someone >> persuade me otherwise? I just don't understand why if I say; div >> {width:200px;padding:7px;border:2px} that width dosn't mean 200px. > > Note that adding the box-sizing property would involve expanding the section > on > computing widths and heights a good deal (as well as changing what "computed > width" actually means, possibly). > > For example, what is the correct layout of: > > width: 10px; padding: 5px; border: 6px > > with border-box sizing? What is the only reasonable interpretation of this overconstrained situation? Since negative content widths are illegal, it makes sense for the computed content width to be set to 0 in this case. TantekReceived on Wednesday, 29 October 2003 00:39:09 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:24 GMT