- 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