W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > February 2017

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-sizing] Intrinsic size of replaced elements incorrect

From: L. David Baron via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 23:10:34 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-280791824-1487373031-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
I just discussed this a bit with @fantasai.

To clarify what I want instead:  I'd like the `width` and the `height`
 to both be considered when computing an element's min-content 
contribution to its parent.  Right now (assuming we're talking about 
English layout, i.e., `min-content` as a `width`), it's clear that for
 `width`, an element's `min-content` width doesn't consider its 
`width` property (this allows things like `width: min-content`).  What
 we're disagreeing about is whether this is the same for how `height` 
is considered, on elements that have an intrinsic ratio.  I'd like the
 `height` to be considered at the same stage as `width`, whereas 
@fantasai wants it to be considered earlier, so that it's incorporated
 into what the `min-content` value means.

I don't think the grid track sizing thing is an issue, since that 
should be depending on the min-content contribution, which is affected
 by the aspect ratio with either proposal.

@fantasai's approach has the advantage (for the spec authors, and 
*maybe* implementors) that defining what `width: auto` means is much 
simpler.  With my approach, the meaning of `width: auto` is more 
complicated since it has special rules for replaced elements.

There isn't a distinct author feature in @fantasai's proposal, I don't
 think; `auto` will still work the way she wants `min-content` and 
`max-content` to behave.  So with what I'm proposing there are more 
behaviors exposed to authors, although they seem unlikely to be useful
 (although I believe they are underlying primitives).

I still think my proposal is more future-proof for features like the 
ones I described above in 

GitHub Notification of comment by dbaron
Please view or discuss this issue at 
using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 17 February 2017 23:10:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:08 UTC