W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2008

Re: [css3-gcpm] border-length

From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:40:24 +0200
Message-ID: <18678.3816.440249.134272@opera.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org

Also sprach Tab Atkins Jr.:

 > >  border-parts: 1em auto 2em

 > Man, I was all ready to suggest using negative numbers on border length to
 > make it start from the middle rather than the corner, but this blows that
 > out of the water.  Yes, border-parts is a substantially better proposal than
 > border-length.

Super, thanks!

 > I'd suggest putting an example into the spec of something you can *only* do
 > with border-part - right now you're just duplicating what border-length can
 > do.  Just use the examples you've already come up with in your email, as
 > they demonstrate the substantial power inherent in this.

Right, here it is:

  http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-gcpm/#border1

(These urls are unstable, the draft changes quickly these days)

 > Taking this idea slightly further, might this be a place to introduce flex
 > units?  The auto keyword in this context is equivalent to 1fl, after all,
 > and this would address the requests that a few other authors have.  I'd like
 > to see a comprehensive Flex module at some point, though...

So, you could say:

  border-parts: 1em 1fl 1em 2fl 1em;

and the first gap in the border would be half the size of the second one?

It makes sense to me and I believe Philip Taylor will like it, too :)

However, introducing a new unit is a pretty big deal. Where else would
you use it?

-h&kon
              Håkon Wium Lie                          CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com                  http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Wednesday, 15 October 2008 15:41:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:15 GMT