Re: [gcpm] border-parts

On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Brad Kemper <>wrote:
> It still looks to me like you are trying to define the dashes in a dashed
> line, which would be awesome. But it seems kludgey to use a "solid" (not
> "dashed") border with dashes in it, just for the single use case of wanting
> a short line segment over a footnote. This is "underloading" what it means
> to have a dashed line (not solid at all), and overloading "border" if all
> you really want is a short, horizontal line segment. Has HR been deprecated?
> It seems to be what you are actually trying to have in your use case; an HR
> with a width. If there was no CSS, you would probably still want the HR
> there to provide the semantic meaning of "separator of different kinds of
> content".

As I pointed out last time Hakon asked for comments, actually switching to
making this a special kind of dashed border would be much less powerful.  We
would then be stuck with solid segments, and have no way to change this.
 What if I wanted a short dotted segment?  The current border-parts proposal
allows this trivially.

As well, it doesn't seem possible to use stretchy lengths in a dashed
border, where the border is conceptually an infinite line that wraps around
the box.  Using fr units in border-parts gives a lot more flexibility.

(With that being said, let me say again that I'd like a way to specify
dashes as well, because that *does* offer me things that border-parts
cannot.  Say a dashed border where the pieces gradually get long and then
return to short, with this effect wrapping around the box.)


Received on Thursday, 30 October 2008 12:35:15 UTC