Emanuele D'Arrigo wrote:
I'm going to assume you meant to not put in the "display:inline" part,
and meant style="width: 45px" and such...
Errrr... <cough><cough>... ahem... I did mean it like that...sorry. I
didn't test it though. Is it just bad practice or is there something
actually wrong?
The latter. There is no "width" attribute on <div>, so width="45px"
does nothing. And non-replaced elements with display:inline ignore the
CSS "width" property.
I could have written it like this I guess: <div
id="div4" style="width:50%; float:left">Wooof</div>
That would significantly change the way the layout works, since that
would take the div out of flow.
I didn't know the XUL model had a name! I googled it and found and
read the CSS3 editor's draft on the matter. Thank you. Do you think
that eventually this model will replace the way block boxes and inline
boxes are handled?
No, not at all. The flexbox model is good for user interfaces. The
current CSS model is good for documents. Since both exist, both models
are needed.
And why do you say the flexbox model is more complicated? It seems
simpler to me, as in more consistent, less special cases, with both
horizontal and vertical arrangement of child boxes being fundamentally
handled the same way.
It's conceptually a lot more complicated, seems like. The CSS model has
width as input, height as output. Each box's layout simply takes the
width it's given and computes the resulting height. Now the complexity
is in the precise way you determine the width it's given and the
resulting height...
In the flexbox model the basic concept is a lot more complicated, since
width and height are interdependent, no?
-Boris
_______________________________________________
dev-tech-layout mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-layout
