- From: Matthew Brealey <thelawnet@yahoo.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:57:19 -0800 (PST)
- To: www-style@w3.org
--- Joe Hewitt <joe@joehewitt.com> wrote:
> No, the box-sizing thing doesn't do what I want. The problem with it is
> that it is not intuitive. Say you are trying to explain this to someone
> new
> to CSS.
Then you would say:
1. Width sets the width of the content
2. Padding sets the width of the padding
3. Border-width sets the width of the border
Not too challenging is it?
> B. Using 4 "width"/"height" regions
>
> The inside of a box has 3 sizable regions: "border", "padding", and
> "content". You can set the size of each of these regions explicitly if
> you
> want control of each of them. If you merely want to set the size of the
> entire box, use "width".
>
> If "width" is defined, and the physical content of the box, or
> "content-width", exceeds ("width"-("border"+"padding")) then "width"
> has
> two choices: if "content-grow: expand" then "width" will expand to fit
> it's
> content. If "content-grow: clip" then the content will be clipped
> within
> this region: "rect(0px, width, auto, 0px)".
>
> In my humble opinion, B is a better solution.
Ahem (and BTW, what's wrong with using the predefined overflow (and
getting the syntax of clip correct?)).
=====
----------------------------------------------------------
From Matthew Brealey (http://members.tripod.co.uk/lawnet (for law)or http://members.tripod.co.uk/lawnet/WEBFRAME.HTM (for CSS))
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
Received on Tuesday, 29 February 2000 13:59:52 UTC