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

Re: [css3-writing-modes] height: fill-available's behavior is suboptimal

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:33:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBr1pFq4ncJ3EOijdjYFfT3sLs7p7W8UBe0UtZ4CsvKbA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com>
Cc: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>> Neither, it should be 100px.
>>
>> The #outer div is width:min-content, so it asks all of its children
>> for their min-content.
>> > The #inner div is sized as 50%, but it's relative to an indefinite
>> > width, so it's ignored and treated as 'auto'.
>> > Under a min sizing constraint, 'auto' becomes 'min-content', so #inner
>> > also asks its children for their min-content width.
>> >> The inline-block is 100px wide.
>> > The #inner div is thus 100px wide.
>> The #outer div is thus 100px wide.
>>
>> Don't try to be too smart about percentages; that way lies madness
>> (like tables).  Percentages are meaningful iff their containing
>> block's size is a definite size.
>
>
> This doesn't match anyone's current implementation. Both Firefox and Webkit
> make it 50px.

Ugh, that's dumb.  I can see why one would think it reasonable to
consider 'min-content' as defining a definite width that you can
resolve a percentage against, but it's obviously wrong in situations
like this, when it produces both underflow and overflow.

But yeah, you're right, that's everyone's behavior in floats. Makes me sad. ;_;

~TJ
Received on Friday, 13 July 2012 22:34:08 GMT

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