Hey, everyone, I could use some help deciding if the current
strategy for widths and margins is working or not.
== HTML's Box Model ==
To determine total width for a box, HTML uses the following
equation:
width = margin-left + border-left-width + padding-left + width +
padding-right + border-right-width + margin-right
You're probably already familiar with this. But it's all described
here: <http://jessey.net/simon/articles/003.html>
An example would be:
<div style="width: 100px; margin: 10px; border: 10px">
<p>Ragtime is poised to make a serious comeback.</p>
</div>
== Shoes' Box Model ==
In Shoes, the "width" of a box is its actual total pixel width,
including margins and borders. So the equivalent to the above in
Shoes would be:
stack :width => 140, :margin => 10, :border => 10
para "Ragtime is poised to make a serious comeback."
end
Now, this is confusing. See ticket #80 for example:
<http://code.whytheluckystiff.net/shoes/ticket/80>
But it's also simpler in a way, since you can clearly see the width
of the box without needing to calculate it mentally.
== So What Stays? ==
I need your help smoothing this out. Shoes deviates from HTML in
the following ways:
* Width encompasses the entire perimeter of a box, including
widths and margins. HTML width only covers content width.
* Shoes has no padding.
* Borders and backgrounds begin at the edges of the content
area (since they are actual Shoes elements). In HTML,
borders surround the content area and ultimately pad the
width as they grow.
I'm looking for pros and cons. The obvious benefit to using HTML's
approach is a lower learning curve for many people, but I also think
the approach with the most merit should prevail. Can I tweak this
so it's not such a stretch? Is this even much of a problem?
Still, as I've been writing this, I've become more convinced that
the way I've got it is very close. Padding could prove handy, but
I'm reluctant to just toss it in.
_why
