- From: Ernest Cline <ernestcline@mindspring.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 13:22:25 -0400
- To: "H?vard Skj?veland" <pho@dataportalen.com>, www-style@w3.org
> [Original Message] > From: Håvard Skjæveland <pho@dataportalen.com> > > Let me try to be a little more precise: I'm wondering why 'border-spacing' > isn't a shorthand property for 'border-spacing-top', > 'border-spacing-right', 'border-spacing-bottom' and 'border-spacing-left'. > Is there a reason why you can only have one value (applies to all four > sides) or two (applies to horizontal sides and vertical sides, > respectively) values? Why isn't it done in the same fashion as the > 'border-width', 'margin' and 'padding' properties, where you can have > one, two, three or four values? To begin with, 'border-spacing' specifies spacing between the borders of adjacent cells. This spacing is specified at the table level, not the cell level. The result is that for inter-cell spacing, you would always be adding together 'border-spacing-top' and 'border-spacing-bottom' to get 'border-spacing-height', so why not just use a single value instead of two? 'border-spacing' also affects the spacing between the border of the boundary cells and the border of the table. While it might be conceivable that one would want a different value here from the inter-cell spacing, that effect is not common desired, and can be achieved in other ways, so keeping things down to simply two values is a good idea in my opinion,
Received on Monday, 26 April 2004 13:23:21 UTC