- From: L. David Baron via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 22:45:29 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
So some of my concerns, from a discussion with @fantasai and @tabatkins include:
* Schrödinger's intrinsic width: it's one thing when you use it, and another when you don't. It seems better to define it just as the thing that it is when you use it. For example, consider the middle `div` in
```html
<div style="float: left"> <!-- consider this with width:auto and with width:500px -->
<div> <!-- consider what the intrinsic width of this div is -->
<div style="width: 25%"></div>
</div>
</div>
```
it has a different intrinsic width depending on whether the outermost `div` looks at its intrinsic width.
* future-compatibility for things like `min(500px, min-intrinsic)` -- is such a thing cyclic some of the time or all the time
I'd rather have specific definitions to handle the case of things with an intrinsic ratio that do use percentages that are definite with respect to a size in the other dimension.
--
GitHub Notification of comment by dbaron
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3010#issuecomment-420086025 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 10 September 2018 22:45:30 UTC