- From: Mike Sherov <mike.sherov@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 21:42:48 -0400
- To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Maybe stating the obvious here, but here's my naive take on the main issues that need resolving, assuming the latest ED intended to truly define a padding:auto (I agree with Lea that this is a useful property value to define): 1. How does padding:auto respond to over constrained boxes? 2. How does padding:auto interact with margin:auto? Mike Sherov Lead Programmer SNAP Interactive, Inc. Ticker: STVI.OB Sent Via Mobile: Please excuse my grammar, tone, and punctuation. My thumbs can't create flowery prose. On Jul 17, 2012, at 3:02 PM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com> wrote: > ± From: Lea Verou [mailto:leaverou@gmail.com] > ± Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 4:08 PM > ± > ± Basically, what's needed is an `auto` value for padding, that makes it > ± behave as `auto` does for margin. In the latest ED there *is* a new > ± `auto` value allowed for the padding properties [1], but the way it's > ± supposed to work is not explained anywhere. > ± > ± [1]: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-box/#the-padding-properties > > Auto padding may create a new problem of what happens if there is no extra space and padding is shrinking to zero, which is rarely an acceptable value for padding. > > I looked at all your links (good collection btw) and all but one (Perch) have extra padding that wouldn't be there if they just had "padding:auto". > > It seems that if "padding:auto" is added, we'll also need 'min-padding'. Which may be reasonable. > > Or... if generated content is extended to make it possible to add a wrapper to any element, that would make the same result possible: > > body::around { > margin:0; > background:url(bg.jpg); > min-height: 100vh; > } > body { > margin:10 auto; > max-width: 40em; > ... > } > > I believe this kind of generated content has been discussed, but I can't point to any discussion or proposal..... > > Alex > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2012 01:43:18 UTC