W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2011

Re: Sloppiness of `box', `area', and `width'

From: Michael Witten <mfwitten@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 21:18:35 -0000
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <ecb0b91ba24c44afb1bc5a7b412e3b2f-mfwitten@gmail.com>
On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:45:19 -0800, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

>>>  The "width" talked about in this chapter is the distance between
>>>  a box's edge and the nearest enclosed box's edge.
>>
>> Do you see? CAN YOU SEE IT? You basically say what I want to say:
>>
>>          The content edge and the padding edge define the
>>          box's padding area.
>>
>>          etc.
>>
>> Perhaps it will help to point out that `edge' DOES mean `perimeter',
>> as defined by the spec (reasonably, in your opinion), and what we
>> are talking ARE areas. Indeed, my problem with the use `width'
>> stems from these statements in the spec:
>>
>>    * If the padding has 0 width, the padding edge is the
>>      same as the content edge.
>>
>>    * If the border has 0 width, the border edge is the
>>      same as the padding edge.
>>
>>    * If the margin has 0 width, the margin edge is the
>>      same as the border edge.
>>
>> What does `the padding has 0 width' mean? It is complete nonsense!
>
> ...
>
> Anyone familiar with how the 'padding' property works can understand
> that sentence - there are 4 widths, one for each side.

I forgot to add: That is the worst basis for writing a specification.

Also, that concept of a `width' was not EXPLICITLY introduced before
this usage; it's another example of an IMPLICIT definition.
Received on Tuesday, 15 November 2011 21:19:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:46 GMT