- From: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 16:52:09 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 4/29/13 4:42 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com> >wrote: >> For CSS2.1 the change that makes most sense to me is to eliminate the >>bit >> about >> values being ignored and make sure the width prose aligns with the >>height >> prose >> i.e. it consistently states that the specified steps define the used >>value. > >Sounds good. > >> Then CSSOM's job is to define the interop behavior of gCS(); here this >> means >> defining the set of properties for which it'll only resolve relative >> lengths >> and percentages and leave specified absolute lengths alone. >> >> Does that make sense? > >To be specific, I think we'd define that, if the *computed* value was >"auto" and the computed value of the opposite property was non-"auto", >return the negation of the opposite property's used value. Otherwise, >return the used value. Right? > >Are we sure the bugwards compat is worth keeping? I assumed we'd specify the existing interoperable behavior. I think you're suggesting specify what the Blink patch you mentioned [1] now does, right? If so, your definition looks right. I am not sure what the compat impact of making this change would be; it's not something you can query a large database of raw content for. It's also something three browsers need to agree on changing at the moment so I would expect caution/pushback. [1] https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/13871003/
Received on Monday, 29 April 2013 23:52:33 UTC