- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:47:39 -0500
- To: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
- Cc: Scott Romack <sromack@ptsteams.com>, www-style@w3.org
> 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.
Sure. I'm not saying we can't specify box-sizing:border-box in a reasonable
way. I'm just saying that it would increase the amount of complexity in the box
model somewhat. ;)
Much more interesting, what should width:inherit inherit? Should
it inherit the computed width? But that's the content area width, even for
boxes that use box-sizing:border-box. Or is it? What is the expected
behavior of the following rules:
div { box-sizing: border-box; width: inherit; border: 10px solid; }
div#root { width: 100px; }
<div id="root">
<div>
<div>
<div>
</div>
</div>
Should the content width of the innermost div be 100px? 80px? 40px? I
suspect 40px is the answer that makes the most sense here, actually.... (and
corresponds to inheriting the content area computed width).
Boris
--
"The difference between a misfortune and a calamity?
If Gladstone fell into the Thames, it would be a
misfortune. But if someone dragged him out again, it
would be a calamity."
-- Benjamin Disraeli
Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2003 00:52:44 UTC