Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] CSS intrinsic-size (#437)

All the explainer says about the alternatives is:

> Elements can already be sized by width, min-width, and various other sizing CSS properties. However, these properties fall short, because they all affect not just intrinsic sizing, but other layout inputs as well. The examples section gives several examples of this.

It doesn't give examples of where using the existing properties would do something other than what the author wants.  The two examples then just say "Notice layout result is not as desired." without saying what was desired or how the result is different.  (Note that the examples don't currently work, even in up-to-date Chrome 78 with experimental web platform features enabled, so it's hard to understand what was intended.)  For example, I think I just figured out the intent of the first example in the block-flow examples, but it required that I view source and spend five minutes thinking about what you wanted to happen in that case.

In the first example in the block-flow examples, the example is showing that while you want the element to report a `300px` intrinsic width, you still want to allow it to shrink smaller than that size if its container is smaller than that size.  It would be good to state that explicitly for the first example, and whatever the equivalent is for the other examples, so that the explainer actually says what it is that this property can do that the existing properties can't, rather than requiring the reader to re-derive that from the examples.  Even then, the example still doesn't show why reporting the `300px` intrinsic width is *useful*; it doesn't show it doing anything.  Showing that seems to require the example be developed a little further.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/437#issuecomment-557354416