- From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:29:54 +0200
- To: MURAKAMI Shinyu <murakami@antenna.co.jp>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
Also sprach MURAKAMI Shinyu: > I have questions about the border-length property. > > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-gcpm/#the-border-length > > + 1 2 + > 8 3 > > 7 4 > + 6 5 + > > 1. Is this order absolute regardless of writing-mode? Yes. It's meant it to be clockwise, just like the margin/padding/border properties. > If so, in vertical text (writing-mode: tb-rl), the footnote area will be > specified as the following: > > @footnote { > float: page left; > border-right: thin solid black; > border-length: 0 0 4em 0; > } > > Correct? Yes. Now, there may be better or more powerful methods to express this. At the recent F2F it was requested that we find a way to express the "inverse" of border-length, where corners are hidden, but lines between them are visible. Proposals for how to address this is welcome; this is a fairly immature part of the specification. Implementation experience is, as always, also helpful. > 2. "Percentages: refer to width of element" -- why not "width or height"? > > I think that the vertical border's percentages should refer to the height > of element. I'd like to remove asymmetries, if possible. The current spec is modeled after the width of margins: http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-CSS21-20070719/box.html#propdef-margin which says that percentages "refer to width of containing block". The problem is that -- in horizontal writing systems -- the height isn't always known when the border is laid out. However, in this case, it may not be that serious problem as the visbility of a border doesn't change the layout. I'm ok with making the change if there are no objections. Cheers, -h&kon Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Wednesday, 15 October 2008 10:30:40 UTC