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

Re: box-sizing: border-box;

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:47:39 -0500
Message-Id: <200310290547.h9T5lefV026868@nerd-xing.mit.edu>
To: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Cc: Scott Romack <sromack@ptsteams.com>, www-style@w3.org

> 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.

Sure.  I'm not saying we can't specify box-sizing:border-box in a reasonable
way.  I'm just saying that it would increase the amount of complexity in the box
model somewhat.  ;)

Much more interesting, what should width:inherit inherit?  Should
it inherit the computed width?  But that's the content area width, even for
boxes that use box-sizing:border-box.   Or is it?  What is the expected
behavior of the following rules:

div { box-sizing: border-box; width: inherit; border: 10px solid; }
div#root { width: 100px; }

<div id="root">
  <div>
    <div>
    <div>
  </div>
</div>

Should the content width of the innermost div be 100px?  80px?  40px?  I
suspect 40px is the answer that makes the most sense here, actually.... (and
corresponds to inheriting the content area computed width).

Boris
-- 
"The difference between a misfortune and a calamity?
If Gladstone fell into the Thames, it would be a
misfortune.  But if someone dragged him out again, it
would be a calamity."
                               -- Benjamin Disraeli
Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2003 00:52:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:24 GMT