W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2011

Re: [css3-writing-modes] auto logical width in orthogonal flows

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 19:07:08 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTinXFnhKTGss28XvrpGmk6viAZt_q2KR93DdM27_@mail.gmail.com>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 6:53 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> On Thursday 2011-01-06 04:09 -0500, Koji Ishii wrote:
>> There's a few e-mails going on in Japanese ML about 'auto' logical width in orthogonal flows, the issue mentioned in writing modes spec[1]. One person preferred 100vh option, but I'd like to understand the results of each option better.
>> <div id="A" style='width: 300px; writing-mode: horizontal-tb;'>
>>   AAA
>>   <div id="B" style='writing-mode: vertical-rl;'>BBB</div>
>>   CCC
>> </div>
>> B has 'auto' logical width here, so the actual height will be:
>> * max-content-size: the height of the string "BBB"
>> * 100vh: the height of the viewport, so there will be vertical scroll
>> * same logical width: 300px
> There's a fourth option, which I described here:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Nov/0286.html
> It works out to the height of the viewport (100vh) in some cases,
> but will produce other heights when there's a constrained-height
> element in-between.  I think it's preferable to the 100vh option.

This is indeed preferable.  The interesting question is, then, does
'height:auto' on a vertical-flow box act like height on a
horizontal-flow box ('fit-content') or like the measure on a
horizontal-flow box ('fill')?

Received on Monday, 7 March 2011 03:08:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:44 UTC