Re: [css-containment] Splitting the "sizing" part from "layout" containment

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:26 PM Levi Weintraub <leviw@chromium.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 2:29 AM Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Splitting sizing from layout makes sense to me.
>>>
>>> As for one property vs two, I think the key question is, as it often is
>>> when we run into this debate, do these two things benefit from the ability
>>> to cascade separately.
>>>
>>> If you're using them on (web) components, I don't think there's a
>>> benefit. Which type of containing might be different on different
>>> components, but for each component you'll want to decide on all 4 aspects
>>> of containment.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, if you do want to use the containments other than
>>> sizing in a heavy handed way all across your page, and separately add
>>> sizing containment without changing the other aspects of containment, then
>>> it makes sense.
>>>
>>> Would you? I can see adding all-but-sizing all over the place, and
>>> specifying some-specific-combo-which-may-include-sizing on components in
>>> the same page. But would you do all-but-sizing all over the place, and ADD
>>> sizing without wanting to change whatever the rest was in specific parts?
>>> If the answer's yes, then two properties are better, but what's the use
>>> case?
>>>
>>
>> This seems extremely rare to me. I think the 99.99% use case is to use
>> one of strict or strict-compatible. Hence my thinking that we should have a
>> single property.
>>
>>
>>>  - Florian
>>>
>>> On Mar 19, 2016, at 09:50, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> There are two important use-cases here:
>>> 1. A simple way to get strong containment without needing to understand
>>> the intricacies of the platform and of each vendor's implementation. This
>>> is "style layout paint size".
>>> 2. A simple way to get soft containment that can be used broadly (e.g.
>>> via "* { contain: strict }"). This is "style layout paint".
>>>
>>> #1 is an extension of #2 and I think it should read that way. Also, it's
>>> really critical that #1 be very simple. It's just so draconian that it
>>> can't be used as the 90% use-case. But it's really critical for that other
>>> 10%.
>>>
>>> It seems to me that we just have a naming problem here, but that we can
>>> still have a single property. I think "strict" is a good name for #1. We
>>> just need to make a name for #2 that sounds like the pre-cursor to #1.
>>>
>>> Here's a few proposals:
>>> a) strictish
>>> b) strictable
>>> c) strict-candidate
>>> d) pre-strict
>>>
>>> How about e) content? I'm not a huge fan of implying strict when we're
> not strict.
>

I like it! It's about how it contains all it's content whereas strict is
that it contains all it's content *and* it doesn't affect stuff around it
when it's content changes.


> FWIW, I agree that we should have a property for both strict and
> whatever-we-call-strict-without-size. I think Ojan is right that one or the
> other will work well for the majority of use cases.
>
>
>>
>>> I prefer (c), but would be happier with any of these than splitting this
>>> up into two properties.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:24 AM Paul Lewis <paul@aerotwist.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for the clarification! SGTM.
>>>>
>>>> Seems like a good addition irrespective of containment. Mainly I'm
>>>> happy if strict doesn't require explicit widths and heights. If there's a
>>>> way to ensure that independently then yay.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2016, 18:18 Tab Atkins Jr., <jackalmage@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Paul Lewis <paul@aerotwist.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> > If we go with a separate property then that restores the clarity of
>>>>> contain,
>>>>> > which is good.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The concern I would have then is what this other property looks
>>>>> like. I
>>>>> > guess it comes like flex properties, which only apply when the
>>>>> parent is
>>>>> > display: flex?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > So I guess, yeah, if a developer sets this additional property along
>>>>> with
>>>>> > width and height (does it need both?) then there's an extra
>>>>> constraint
>>>>> > applied, but for the main case "strict-ish" just got promoted to
>>>>> "strict"
>>>>> > and we make this sizing property, in conjunction with the other, the
>>>>> "super
>>>>> > strict" option? :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Nah, the idea is that you'd have something like "height-foo: auto |
>>>>> pretend-you-are-empty;" (all names subject to change, obviously).  It
>>>>> would be completely disconnected from 'contain', and it applies to all
>>>>> elements at all times.  If you set it to "pretend-you-are-empty", then
>>>>> you need to either provide a value for 'height' as well, or your
>>>>> element will break in an obvious way, as it immediately collapses to
>>>>> zero height.  Similar for 'width'.
>>>>>
>>>>> ~TJ
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>