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: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:21:02 -0700
Message-ID: <501732FE.2040100@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 07/13/2012 12:24 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com <mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com <mailto: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?

Okay

~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2012 01:21:30 GMT

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