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

Re: [css3-writing-modes] fit-content equation is backwards from the CSS2.1 spec

From: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:24:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CANMdWTusDOub2TmQk9BFiXPpwKFyY+=Pd2-diHLSqJ=Ku1RebQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I'm trying to implement the writing mode width and height keywords in
> webkit
> > and I realized the equation is backwards in the spec from the one it
> > references.
> >
> > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-writing-modes/#intrinsic-sizing
> >
> > max(min-content, min(max-content, fill-available))
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#float-width
> >
> > min(max(preferred minimum width, available width), preferred width)
> >
> > which seems to be equivalent with the new keywords to:
> >
> > min(max-content, max(min-content, fill-available))
> >
> > Which is indeed what the code in Webkit currently does for the keyword
> > "intrinsic" (old name for fit-content) and for floats.
>
> The two orderings are functionally identical, no?
>

Still, is there any reason to be different? The webkit code for this does
it the CSS2.1 way and everyone who looks at that code and reads the writing
mode spec needs to think through it to confirm that they're the same. The
same obviously applies to anyone looking at both specs. Seems silly. May as
well change it, no?


> ~TJ
>
>
Received on Friday, 13 July 2012 19:25:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:56 GMT