- From: Matthew Brealey <thelawnet@yahoo.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 11:03:26 -0800 (PST)
- To: www-style@w3.org
--- Joe Hewitt <joe@joehewitt.com> wrote: > > There are a number of problems with this proposal: > > > > * It does not work well with the cascade: if an author wants the > > contents of an element to take up a certain area, and the > > user has a > > different padding or border specified (think, perhaps, of images in > > links), then the content will occupy a different size than > > the author > > expects. > > I don't understand why this is a problem. User-defined stylesheets are > always going to boink up the > author's desired style, ---------------- Not the issue. The users preferences (and frequently physical needs) are paramount. In any can user-defined styles do not 'boink up' anything; I use mine quite happily without any problems. > so why is my > proposal > any different from the way author/user style conflicts work now in CSS? Because they work fine at present. > > * A 'box-sizing' or 'border-width' property > > The basis of my argument was that 'box-sizing' is not an intuitive > solution, > and this is a better solution. What isn't intuitive about it? ===== ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 14:03:27 UTC