- From: Mats Palmgren via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 23:56:51 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Yes, I think this is a good idea for "transferred size". Firefox currently doesn't do this -- we only clamp the intrinsic size, but that can lead to non-intuitive results since it may overflow the clamped axis when stretching an image with preserved ratio. I don't think clamping should shrink an item below its specified `width/height` in the same axis though (as you seem to suggest, but maybe I misunderstood?). I wonder if it would be better to define the grid area clamping in terms of `max-width/height` instead? It's currently a bit undefined how clamping interacts with `min/max-width/height` (and over-constrained situations), even with your suggested additions above. Something like "clamping acts as an extra max-size on the item in the relevant axis, that is, the used `max-width/height` is the minimum of the grid area size and the computed value of the relevant `max-width/height`, if any". That makes it much better defined, since we re-use all spec text for `max-width/height`. It's immediately clear that a specified larger `width/height` trumps the clamping, for example. (Warning: I haven't really investigated this idea in depth.) -- GitHub Notification of comment by MatsPalmgren Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/767#issuecomment-263093249 using your GitHub account
Received on Saturday, 26 November 2016 23:56:58 UTC