|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 10/12/07 08:54
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:48:09
GMT Ben C scribed:
>>> How does the box model suck anyway? If you didn't have to worry about
>>> history or what existing browsers did, what box model would you
>>> design?
>>
>> I am not nor profess to be an expert in designing box models, but
first
>> and foremost, said model should be logical _and_ easy to use. I'd
>> approach the problem by "reverting" to a model wherein the "100%"
>> designation includes borders/margins/padding and see, by empirical
>> testing, how that might be accommodated.
>
> For CSS3, the box-sizing: [content-box | border-box] property has been
> proposed.
Sounds interesting, I'll have to look into that.
>> I would re-base top and bottom percentage designations applied on
>> margins, etc., to height as opposed to width.
>
> There are some unforseen consequences to doing that. The height of an
> element often can't be known until its descendents have been formatted.
Hah, unforeseen by whom?
> But its descendents may contain floats (which affect their containers'
> heights, by displacing text for example). The positions of the floats
> and therefore how the text flows around them is affected by the top
> margin of the container in the case where a float spreads from one
block
> box down into a vertically adjacent one.
>
> So you would have a circularity: top margin height depends on content
> height, which depends on floats, which depends on top margin height.
Are you seriously telling me _you_ couldn't fix this with the pertinent
(empirical) programming knowledge? I know you're smarter than that.
> Not insoluble, but since the way text wraps around lines and floats is
> not a nice smooth function, the only practical solution would be a lot
> of iteration.
Not a lot; one - two passes at most.
Anyway, all this isn't really _my_ point. My point is that you do what
it takes to make it work right - meaning facilely and correctly within
the scope of its _correct_ definition. That's what's so horrible about
those "useragent-optional" thingies in the specs. There _are_ no
options; either do it right or take a hike. As for legacy and history, -
an old and hackneyed excuse. Nobody expects perfect html/css, etc., in
one day but many more-or-less expect near-perfect html/css, etc., _some_
day. From everything I've seen so far, that day simply will not come
without considerable and radical change. Much of what exists now needs
to be excised and transformed before things can approach a truly
"unimpaired" state. -And by that time, some Flash derivative will
probably have taken over the whole schlemeil with flying colors...
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|