- From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
- Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 21:43:10 -0800
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Scott Romack <sromack@ptsteams.com>
- Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
On 10/28/03 11:33 AM, "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU> wrote:
>
>> My statement is simple I don't like the content-box model! could someone
>> persuade me otherwise? I just don't understand why if I say; div
>> {width:200px;padding:7px;border:2px} that width dosn't mean 200px.
>
> Note that adding the box-sizing property would involve expanding the section
> on
> computing widths and heights a good deal (as well as changing what "computed
> width" actually means, possibly).
>
> For example, what is the correct layout of:
>
> width: 10px; padding: 5px; border: 6px
>
> with border-box sizing?
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.
Tantek
Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2003 00:39:09 UTC