On 05/06/2015 04:35 PM, Andrew Shadura wrote:
Does that fix an issue? In which case? Related to the other changes?
This is actually a side effect of the change. I needed a link to fill
the table cell so I set width: 100%, which automagically made the
columns flexible.
* enable box-sizing: border-box for the number links to
make it easier to set paddings
I have no idea about this. Is it related to the other changes? Which
paddings were hard in which cases? How is it easier than before? Is
it a trick we also could/should use elsewhere?
In short, border-box is what previously used to be known as IE quirks
mode box model. The difference is that width does include paddings and
borders (in the traditional W3C model it didn't). This simplified
calculations for some cases, but used to be non-standard for some time
until it was accepted by W3C. These days some popular CSS frameworks,
like Bootstrap, use box-sizing: border-box exclusively to implement
responsive design (it would require complicated CSS hacks otherwise).
Without setting this thing here I couldn't figure out how to properly
set internal spacing in the line number column which collapsed after I
used width: 100%.
Thanks for the clarification and the thoughts about how applicable it is
for our use.
Box-sizing seems to still be experimental and sems risky. Does it work
reliably across all the browsers we care about? How seriously will it
fail if it doesn't work?
I guess bootstrap added the necessary quirks to make it for their case -
we don't need additional quirks too?
Some of this would be nice to have in commit messages ... perhaps except
the education of me ;-) It would also be nice to have it split it up in
separate changes ... but perhaps without going to the smf extreme ;-)
With these comments addressed, it looks good to me.
/Mads
_______________________________________________
kallithea-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.sfconservancy.org/mailman/listinfo/kallithea-general
