You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The purpose of the box model rule is to alert the author to potentially unforeseen sizes due to the box model when width or height declarations are combined with other box-model declarations. But if the width or height declaration is overriding a set value and returning to auto, in an OOCSS extension for example, then a padding or border declaration should not trigger the box alert rule, as there is explicitly no expected height or width on the element.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This does indeed trigger a warning. I agree that it shouldn't. It actually shouldn't trigger a warning whenever the value isn't a <length/percentage>. [There are a bunch of other possible values].
[Side note: I recommend to disable this rule, because it's actually not very helpful. It's supposed to detect a glaringly obvious defect, which hits you right in the face when you produce it. When it doesn't tell you something you've already noticed yourself a few minutes ago, it will just waste your time with false positives. I.e. you did the math and you get indeed the results you were after.]
The purpose of the box model rule is to alert the author to potentially unforeseen sizes due to the box model when width or height declarations are combined with other box-model declarations. But if the width or height declaration is overriding a set value and returning to auto, in an OOCSS extension for example, then a padding or border declaration should not trigger the box alert rule, as there is explicitly no expected height or width on the element.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: