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

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

From: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 14:24:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CANMdWTunwJV6CKneGn1XW1gMxQtv_EpjfNRBrNtXaK1QnYBhdA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote:
> > Maybe the % thing is a bad example because we can't change that. But for
> > fill-available, and if we added a new percent-like value that actually
> > worked, wouldn't your suggestion that started this thread lead to 500px
> > because we'd skip over the min-content div?
>
> Ah, yes.  It would go find the nearest definite size, subtract
> intervening margin/border/padding, then resolve itself.  So #inner
> would be 500px in this case.
>

So, we all agree to David's proposal then? I'm fine either way on this
min-content/max-content/fit-content thing. I don't see clear advantages of
doing it one way or another, in which case we should do the simplest thing
(i.e. David's proposal). It's a little weird that the content of a
min-content element can overflow, but I don't think there are any proposals
that would guarantee no overflow.

Certainly, at the very least, subtracting the padding/border/margin from
the containing block is a must.

Ojan
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2012 21:25:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:57 GMT