- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 16:17:07 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `Intrinsic sizing algorithm seems to produce 0 for many common cases`, and agreed to the following resolutions: * `RESOLVED: Change the spec to treat width and height as input for the max content size` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <dael> Topic: Intrinsic sizing algorithm seems to produce 0 for many common cases<br> <dael> Github topic: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1435<br> <fantasai> Options: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1435#issuecomment-321098718<br> <dael> fantasai: There is an issue filed by dholbert pointing out max-content of a flex container is only defined by max content size of its content and flex-basis isn't taken into account. Empty elements in flex with a basis it shrinks to 0.<br> <dael> fantasai: dholbert pointed out this is unintuitive. We did give it a size<br> <dael> fantasai: We have options here. No one has a good arguement for one over another. We need WG or community opinion. We could do nothing and leave as-is. We could treat specified width or height as a size that needs honor and ignore flex-basis. WE could do flex-basis and ignore width and height. And this would all be inflated by max-content.<br> <dael> fantasai: If I was going to pick randomly I would say use width and height but not flex-basis<br> <dael> Bert: Sounds like it's not a serious problem, but I may be misreading. Any opinions?<br> <dael> gregwhitworth: I'd agree with width and height but not flex-basis. My only worry is, I don't expect people to hit this on web but they prob wouldn't know they have empty flex.<br> <dael> gregwhitworth: Any compat issues?<br> <dael> rachelandrew: As an author it's not an issue I"ve seen.<br> <dael> rachelandrew: I'd prob agree width/height not flex-basis makes sense.<br> <dael> Bert: That's one in support. Other opinions?<br> <dael> Bert: Other options...flex-basis as well as width/height and take the max, they are less desireable. Did ne not want to discuss those?<br> <dael> fantasai: flex-basis is a start place for flexing, it's an input. Width and height are set. In that case you're setting something explicit and everywhere else in CSS we take that.<br> <dael> Bert: Anybody want to argue in favor of flex-basis or max of that and width?<br> <dael> Bert: Maybe we drop those.<br> <dael> Bert: So only no change or look at width/height<br> <myles> present+: myles<br> <dael> Florian: Sounds like a good change, but is anyone rushing to impl?<br> <dael> fantasai: I'm not sure but dholbert is planning to look at flex box.<br> <dael> gregwhitworth: Looking at the test cae we have interop. It's a worthwhile change, we should make it.<br> <dael> Bert: Okay, they we need buy in from more impl.<br> <dael> Florian: We have 2 at least. That's a good start.<br> <dael> Bert: Is TabAtkins on?<br> <dael> fantasai: He's just IRC.<br> <bradk> Is there existing content that depends on current interop behavior?<br> <dael> Bert: I'm hearing some support for looking at width/height but not flex-basis which is a change in spec.<br> <dael> fantasai: Yes.<br> <dael> Bert: Do we put that up? Change the spec to treat width and height as input for the max content size<br> <dael> Bert: Who is in favor, who is against?<br> <dael> Florian: In favor<br> <rachelandrew> +1<br> <dael> Bert: I only hear in favor.<br> <dael> RESOLVED: Change the spec to treat width and height as input for the max content size<br> <dael> Bert: fantasai will you write text? or TabAtkins ?<br> <dael> Bert: Whose action?<br> <TabAtkins> We'll take care of it, don't worry<br> <dael> fantasai: We'll do it, don't worry.<br> <dbaron> I guess I'm surprised they weren't already an input to the max-content contribution, given that they're an input for other layout modes.<br> <TabAtkins> As long as it shows up in the issue<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1435#issuecomment-324386757 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 23 August 2017 16:17:06 UTC