- From: Michael Witten <mfwitten@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:17:36 -0000
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 10:13:34 -0800, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:22 AM, Michael Witten <mfwitten@gmail.com> wrote:
>> * The phrase `content box' means "the box's content area".
>> * The phrase `padding box' means "the box's padding area".
>> * The phrase `border box' means "the box's border area".
>> * The phrase `margin box' means "the box's margin area".
>
> This equivalence isn't stated explicitly, but it appears obvious.
It's sloppy.
The whole section begins by talking about the structure of a box;
it's sloppy to introduce the word `box' again with a different
meaning (just as it's sloppy to reuse the word `edge' with different
meanings).
>From sloppiness comes more sloppiness:
>> * The sentence:
>> The four content edges define the box's content box.
>> really means:
>> The content edge defines the box's content area.
>
> I don't see a difference here.
> [snip identical statements about padding/border/margin]
Firstly, the main issue I'm showing is the continuation of the
sloppy use of the term `edge' (hopefully discussed elsewhere
in this thread).
Secondly, those statements you "snipped" are NOT identical;
I shall reproduce them for you here:
* The sentence:
The four padding edges define the box's padding box.
really means:
The content edge and the padding edge define the
box's padding area.
* The sentence:
The four border edges define the box's border box.
really means:
The padding edge and the border edge define the
box's border area.
* The sentence:
The four margin edges define the box's margin box.
really means:
The border edge and the margin edge define the
box's margin area.
What gets defined is an *area*, not a *box* (which, again,
is not the same kind of box as that which is meant to be
described by the box model).
In particular, notice how the more precise language that I
use is something at which YOU hint in this other rebuttal:
>> * The word `width' is a suitable synonym for the word `area'.
>
> No, that's not true, and it's not suggested in the text. The "width"
> talked about in this chapter is the distance between a box's edge and
> the nearest enclosed box's edge. This can be different for each of the
> four edges. It's almost never synonymous with "area", as even when
> the padding is zero, for example, the padding box will have the same
> area as the content box.
Do you see what you say? Here:
The "width" talked about in this chapter is the distance between
a box's edge and the nearest enclosed box's edge.
Do you see? CAN YOU SEE IT? You basically say what I want to say:
The content edge and the padding edge define the
box's padding area.
etc.
Perhaps it will help to point out that `edge' DOES mean `perimeter',
as defined by the spec (reasonably, in your opinion), and what we
are talking ARE areas. Indeed, my problem with the use `width'
stems from these statements in the spec:
* If the padding has 0 width, the padding edge is the
same as the content edge.
* If the border has 0 width, the border edge is the
same as the padding edge.
* If the margin has 0 width, the margin edge is the
same as the border edge.
What does `the padding has 0 width' mean? It is complete nonsense!
However, the term `padding area' has been reasonably defined, and
it certainly makes sense to say:
* If the padding area is 0, the padding edge is the
same as the content edge.
where `padding edge', of course, means:
the padding area's [outer] perimeter
etc.
etc.
etc.
Also, the term `width' has not at all been introduced before it is
used in the context of the distance between two... what should I
call them... edges?... maybe `sub-edges' as you said in order to
to clarify yourself in another email.
Sloppy.
I provide more consistent usage in my suggested copyedit.
Received on Tuesday, 15 November 2011 19:28:49 UTC