- From: fantasai via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 20:38:41 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Testcase: http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?saved=4905 Renderings: https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/tools/screenshots/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsoftware.hixie.ch%2Futilities%2Fjs%2Flive-dom-viewer%2F%3Fsaved%3D4905 This is various kinds of insane. I understand wanting to have percentage width and/or max-width make the min-content size zero. I could also understand wanting to do this for images but not form controls or vice versa. But I don't understand wanting to do it for both width and max-width for images, but only width (and not max-width) for form controls. Do we *have* to be randomly inconsistent here, or can we spec something somewhat sane like "all replaced elements are affected by both max-width and width" or suchlike? Generally-speaking, the min-content size in the block axis is (like the max-content size) the content-based size--what results from `height: auto`. We define the concept so that things like grid layout and orthogonal flows can be defined with symmetry. So, for example, if I ask a grid to size a row filled with images or form controls as “min-content”, it's defined. Similarly if I wrap a float around a vertical-rl form control, its min-content width (logical height) needs to be defined. Also, one thing to point out here: for form controls the min-content contribution isn't exactly zero, it's UA-defined based on how narrow the form control can actually get. This limitation is probably worth preserving in either case. -- GitHub Notification of comment by fantasai Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/765#issuecomment-282113836 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2017 20:38:48 UTC