I don't particularly like the HTML box model. I think the learning
curve is actually too high. In my opinion, a box with a width of
100px should be just that, 100px wide. Anything beyond that is
superfluous and displeases god and nature. So that's my opinion about
where the margins and borders should go in the "width =" equation.
Now for the padding. I disagree with the padding element approach you
propose below. The idea of using a different brush and using that
from now on is easy to grasp intuitively. But the idea of applying a
padding in this way is a lot more difficult. I may be terribly
traditional here, but I like a UI definition to be declarative, not
procedural. Or at least, to look declarative, like stacks and flows
do. The embedding of stacks and flows in the code corresponds exactly
to the embedding of the actual visual elements, which is wonderful. A
pad function would not have that particular benefit.
I really think Shoes is fine the way it is with respect to margins.
If you want a padding, just throw in a flow with a margin. It seems
natural to me.
This still leaves the problem that the coordinates in the inner box
are different from those of the background. Now, I would say that
only matters when using absolute positioning. (I may be wrong here.)
Can't we use a construct like
:outer-top => 20, :outer-left: 10
(or parent- instead of outer-) for these cases? Setting :outer-top
would subtract the margin width and set :top accordingly.
sb
On 28-dec-2007, at 22:23, why the lucky stiff wrote:
On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 09:36:59PM +0100, Koen Van der Auwera wrote:
Well, to be honest I like it just the way it is. It's clear. If I
understand
correctly the goal is to keep Shoes as simple as possible and then
I'm not
sure the HTML-way is the best way.
Padding could be handy though :)
Well, let me share my concern about padding and maybe you can help
me make up my mind here.
The only real use for padding is to offset the contents of a box
from the background and border. So, the margin offsets the
background and the padding offsets the text.
<div style="width: 100px; padding: 10px; margin: 10px;
background:red;">I love ragtime</div>
In this example, the box itself will be 140px wide. From 0 to 140
on the x-axis. The background will cover 10 to 130 on the x-axis.
And the text will cover 20 to 120 on the x-axis.
In Shoes, backgrounds are their own element, not a style. So the
equivalent would be:
stack :width => 140, :margin => 10 do
background red
stack :margin => 10 do
para "I love ragtime"
end
end
So, the trouble with a padding style is that the padding would
affect only most elements, all but `background` and `border`.
This means that different elements would be operating under
slightly different coordinate systems. I don't really like that a
style would only apply to certain elements, since it requires extra
memorization.
Maybe a padding element, which would pad everything underneath it.
stack :width => 140, :margin => 10
background red
pad 10
background blue
para "I love ragtime"
end
So the blue background is padded ten pixels along with the text.
This might even do away with margins:
stack :width => 140
pad 10
background red
pad 10
background blue
para "I love ragtime"
end
There is a precedent for this in Shoes, since `stroke` and `fill`
are stateful and affect elements below them.
_why
