W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2015

Re: [css-ui-3] box-sizing: padding-box

From: Patrick Dark <www-style.at.w3.org@patrick.dark.name>
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 17:15:37 -0500
Message-ID: <557CAB89.5070506@patrick.dark.name>
To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 6/13/2015 3:00 PM, Florian Rivoal wrote:
> Using calc to replace box-sizing is possible, and that's not specific to the padding-box value. But using box-sizing is supposed to make code easier to read understand and maintain.

I don't think having multiple box models makes code easier to understand and maintain.

|box-sizing| seems to be a patch for the reality that the CSS Working Group chose an inferior box model and isn't able to fix that. The |border-box| model is the most intuitive model and already in de facto, widespread use via the HTML |table| element, so it makes sense to keep |box-sizing: border-box|. The |padding-box| value seems to be something created for the sake of completeness. Completeness isn't an end unto itself; there needs to be a use case. The single use case you've shown isn't compelling.

On 6/13/2015 3:00 PM, Florian Rivoal wrote:
> So I agree we can drop padding-box and not lose functionality, but we lose expressivity.

You have expressivity in the form of the |calc| function.

Typically, cases where |box-sizing: padding-box| would be useful are also covered by |box-sizing: border-box|, so you can often use that too.
Received on Saturday, 13 June 2015 22:16:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:54 UTC