W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2008

Re: [gcpm] border-parts

From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 22:38:57 +0100
Message-ID: <18698.10609.940915.191425@opera.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brkemper.comcast@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org

Also sprach Brad Kemper:

 > > [1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-gcpm/Overview.html#border

 > 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. 

There are more use cases. Example XXVIII shows a quite common
rendering and it's not natural to think of it as "dashes". The
proposed mechanism can be used for many other designs as well so I
think it's better to think of this as clip regions on whatever border
would otherwise be drawn, than as a refinement of the border-style

If we were to use your idea of refining the keywords, what would your
properties be?

  dashes-top, dashes-right, dotted-top, dotted-right etc?

And, how would rounded corners be shown?

 > 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?

HR isn't suitable for the original use case; the footnote areas only
exists as an @-rule in the style sheet:

  @footnote {
    margin-top: 0.5em;
    border-top: thin solid black;
    border-parts: 4em;
    padding-top: 0.5em;

... so, there's no place to put the HR element.


              Håkon Wium Lie                          CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com                  http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Thursday, 30 October 2008 21:39:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:40 UTC