- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 11:01:29 -0700
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > On 3/29/13 1:32 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> It should be something like "If box-sizing is 'content-box', use the >> 2.1 formula. If it's 'padding-box', use 'margin-left' + >> 'border-left-width' + 'width' + 'border-right-width' + 'margin-right'. >> If it's 'border-box', etc." + language about how to determine the size >> of the content box given the various values. > > I see. That _really_ needs to be specced somewhere, if so. > > But it's not actually clear to me why this is a better formulation than > having used width actually mean content-box width, honestly. Why is it > better? Because then you can't round-trip 'width', which is *weird*. >> Don't trust Box for anything worthwhile. > > Well, do we have a spec that actually defines block layout anymore? ;) Nope! ~TJ
Received on Friday, 29 March 2013 18:02:16 UTC