W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2012

Re: [css3-sizing] fill-available in block direction and infinite size

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 18:53:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBLCUHCzPO3sCy+GmUGZ6foH_Gy5SkX-FDsW-guv6sm6A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fran├žois REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Fran├žois REMY
<fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> Why does the specification state "or an infinite size" and "or infinity
> otherwise" then? To me, it seems like as soon as you refer to something that
> can possibly become infinite, you have to deal with infinity... or you need
> to explain that infinity can't possibly happen as an end result, and why.
> It's posible I'm just missing the trick...

We haven't yet ported over some of the text about orthogonal flows,
where an "auto" width (different from "fill-available") can be
resolved against an infinite available space.

> To clarify the whole thing a bit, would you mind to state what would be the
> layout of the following piece of HTML :
>
>    html
>        body
>            header
>            div
>                p
>                p
>            ul style="position: absolute"
>                li
>                li
>
> when the following CSS rule apply :
>
>    * {
>        width: fill-available;
>        height: fill-available;
>    }

If we ignore margins for simplicity, then every single element here is
100vh tall and 100vw wide.  That means, of course, that several of
them are overflowing.

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2012 01:53:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:58 GMT