Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-sizing-3] Spec disagrees with reality on how min-content / max-content contribution is computed for elements w/ intrinsic aspect ratio & percent size in opposite dimension

I think the relevant change is , right?

(There's a link above saying "fantasai added a commit that referenced this issue" but that links to a [different seemingly-unrelated change](

Assuming I'm understanding correctly about which commit I should be looking at, several nits:
(1) "this behaves as zero" - IMO we should avoid "behaves" since it's too vague. I think you're talking about the used value being zero here, correct?

(2) "For backwards-compatibility, the resolved value of this keyword is zero for [...] block and inline boxes"  -- this isn't strictly what you want to say, because flex items are "block boxes" (if they're  `display:block`, and the resolved value of this keyword is *not* zero for them.

(3) Is the word "zero" OK to use here, or should we use `0`? (Since `0` is an actual valid value for these properties, whereas "zero" is a bit vaguer (and does it mean 0% vs 0 vs 0px, etc.)

Suggestion: maybe you can address all three of these by replacing this with some language like:
> Unless other layout modules explicitly define another behavior,
> the used and resolved value of this keyword is `0`.

...and then other layout modes (grid/flex) should be sure to define that the `resolved value` is `auto`, and the `used value` is the special complex thing.  (RE "resolved value", maybe there's a way to describe all the CSS21 box-children in a sufficiently-precise way, but I'm not thinking of it right now.  Basically you want to say "everything which is not a grid item and not a flex item and not a future similar thing", which is a hard concept to encapsulate.)

GitHub Notification of comment by dholbert
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Thursday, 1 February 2018 16:42:39 UTC