I feel that width meaning the entire width is more intuitive. Also, it seems to not be less powerful.
rm On 12/28/07, why the lucky stiff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 >
