W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2013

Re: [css3-sizing] intrinsic widths of replaced elements inside flexboxes

From: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 10:18:59 -0800
Message-ID: <CANMdWTs9tvskdLjRvn0OtxrcHUnOnTSLDFscR2m5m8-0Z90Ftw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:

> On 2/12/13 8:56 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> Most of the tests in here have no constraint that would cause them to go
>> below their max-intrinsic width, so it doesn't matter what the
>> min-intrinsic width is.
> Oh, and the point is that the table cell test _does_ have such a thing in
> it: that other table cell that takes up all the available space.

Ugh. Yup. I realized this as I was going to bed last night. :) OK, so this
has nothing to do with table cells.

 On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 4:25 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:

> On Tuesday 2013-02-12 16:13 -0800, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> > TL;DR: I think we need to add something like the following to the
> > css3-sizing spec: The min-measure *contribution* of a replaced element
> with
> > a percentage width to the min-content measure of a table cell is 0.
> I think the "contribution" idea here is correct; the 'width',
> 'min-width', and 'max-width' properties on an element do not affect
> its own min-content width, but they do affect the min-content width
> of its parent.  When I wrote http://dbaron.org/css/intrinsic/ I used
> the term "outer minimum intrinsic width" for what you call
> "contribution" (though it also involved adjusting from content-box
> to margin-box widths).

I was just using the terminology of http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-sizing.

Now that we have a better test case that makes the available width 0, I
have more clarity on what questions need to be resolved.

1. The spec needs to say something to the effect of "The min-measure
contribution of a replaced element with a percentage width is the border
and padding measure of that element." Or should it be 0? WebKit does 0. IE,
Gecko, Opera seem to use the border and padding width.

Action needed: The spec clearly needs to change. IMO, using the
border/padding width makes the most sense, but I'd be OK with just using 0
as well.

2. If there is border and/or padding, IE still resolved the 100% width on
the image against the 0 available width, so the image sizes to 0.
Opera/Gecko size the image height to the border and padding height, and
then increase the width to maintain the aspect ratio and the image
overflows it's container here.

Action needed: We need to decide something here and put it in the
appropriate spec. The IE behavior seems the most sensible to me, but this
is all a weird edge case and I'm open to any behavior as long as we can all
agree on it.

3. Except for the flexbox case, WebKit doesn't actually shrink the image

Action needed: WebKit's the only one that does this. We should just change
to match other browsers here.

4. In the flexbox case, Gecko/WebKit don't apply the min-width: auto ==
min-width: min-content to the image. The min-content measure of the image
is not 0 even though it's min-measure contribution is, so min-width:
min-content should cause the image to be it's intrinsic size.

Action needed: This looks like a bug to me. Gecko/WebKit just need to fix
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2013 18:19:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:08 UTC