- From: Michael Witten <mfwitten@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 21:18:35 -0000
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:45:19 -0800, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >>> 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! > > ... > > Anyone familiar with how the 'padding' property works can understand > that sentence - there are 4 widths, one for each side. I forgot to add: That is the worst basis for writing a specification. Also, that concept of a `width' was not EXPLICITLY introduced before this usage; it's another example of an IMPLICIT definition.
Received on Tuesday, 15 November 2011 21:19:39 UTC