Why does CSS not support negative padding?

Question

I recently answered a different question where I discussed why the box model is the way it is.

There are specific reasons for each part of the box model. Padding is meant to extend the background beyond its contents. If you need to shrink the background of the container, you should make the parent container the correct size and give the child element some negative margins. In this case the content is not being padded, it's overflowing.

I would like to describe a very good example of why negative padding would be useful and awesome.

As all of us CSS developers know, vertically aligning a dynamically sizing div within another is a hassle, and for the most part, viewed as being impossible only using CSS. The incorporation of negative padding could change this.

Please review the following HTML:

<div style="height:600px; width:100%;">
    <div class="vertical-align" style="width:100%;height:auto;" >
        This DIV's height will change based the width of the screen.
    </div>
</div>

With the following CSS, we would be able to vertically center the content of the inner div within the outer div:

.vertical-align {
    position: absolute;
    top:50%;
    padding-top:-50%;
    overflow: visible;
}

Allow me to explain...

Absolutely positioning the inner div's top at 50% places the top edge of the inner div at the center of the outer div. Pretty simple. This is because percentage based positioning is relative to the inner dimensions of the parent element.

Percentage based padding, on the other hand, is based on the inner dimensions of the targeted element. So, by applying the property of padding-top: -50%; we have shifted the content of the inner div upward by a distance of 50% of the height of the inner div's content, therefore centering the inner div's content within the outer div and still allowing the height dimension of the inner div to be dynamic!

If you ask me OP, this would be the best use-case, and I think it should be implemented just so I can do this hack. lol. Or, they should just fix the functionality of vertical-align and give us a version of vertical-align that works on all elements.

Padding by definition is a positive integer (including 0).

Negative padding would cause the border to collapse into the content (see the box-model page on w3) - this would make the content area smaller than the content, which doesn't make sense.

You asked WHY, not how to cheat it:

Usually because of laziness of programmers of the initial implementation, because they HAVE already put way more effort in other features, delivering more odd side-effects like floats, because they were more requested by designers back then and yet they haven't taken the time to allow this so we can use the FOUR properties to push/pull an element against its neighbors (now we only have four to push, and only 2 to pull).

When html was designed, magazines loved text reflown around images back then, now hated because today we have touch trends, and love squary things with lots of space and nothing to read. That's why they put more pressure on floats than on centering, or they could have designed something like margin-top: fill; or margin: average 0; to simply align the content to the bottom, or distribute its extra space around.

In this case I think it hasn't been implemented because of the same reason that makes CSS to lack of a :parent pseudo-selector: To prevent looping evaluations.

Without being an engineer, I can see that CSS right now is made to paint elements once, remember some properties for future elements to be painted, but NEVER going back to already-painted elements.

That's why (I guess) padding is calculated on the width, because that's the value that was available at the time of starting to paint it.

If you had a negative value for padding, it would affect the outer limits, which has ALREADY been defined when the margin has already been set. I know, nothing has been painted yet, but when you read how the painting process goes, created by geniuses with 90's technology, I feel like I am asking dumb questions and just say "thanks" hehe.

One of the requirements of web pages is that they are quickly available, unlike an app that can take its time and eat the computer resources to get everything correct before displaying it, web pages need to use little resources (so they are fit in every device possible) and be scrolled in a breeze.

If you see applications with complex reflowing and positioning, like InDesign, you can't scroll that fast! It takes a big effort both from processors and graphic card to jump to next pages!

So painting and calculating forward and forgetting about an element once drawn, for now it seems to be a MUST.

This could help, by the way:

The box-sizing CSS property is used to alter the default CSS box model used to calculate widths and heights of elements.

http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-ui/#box-sizing
https://developer.mozilla.org/En/CSS/Box-sizing