- From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 23:26:59 +0800
- To: Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com>
- CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
(12/06/14 3:20), Elliott Sprehn 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)) (12/06/14 4:11), Elliott Sprehn wrote: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote: > >> .. >> >> The two orderings are functionally identical, no? > > > Hmm, yeah they are since max-content >= min-content, if that wasn't true > they're different. If I understand how browsers calculate max-content/min-content measure correctly, this invariant doesn't even hold in CSS 2.1. Test case: data:text/html,<div style="word-spacing: -3em; border: red solid; float: left;">A B</div> If "max(min-content, min(max-content, fill-available))" were used, the 'width' would be 'min-content' and the red border would be surrounding A and B, not collapsed to a line as what's shown in Chrome20 and Firefox 13 (Opera12alpha has certain limit to negative 'word-spacing' so this can't show the difference and I don't have IE to test with at the moment). But even if I am doing something wrong with this experiment, I agree with Ojan because this difference confused me too. Cheers, Kenny
Received on Monday, 16 July 2012 15:27:29 UTC