W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > February 2018

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

From: Daniel Holbert via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2018 19:59:28 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-362384110-1517515167-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
I think there's still one thing that needs clarifying.  Right now the spec text says:
> The max-content size of a box in each axis
> is the size it would have if it were
> a float given an ''auto'' size in that axis
> and whose containing block was infinitely-sized in that axis.

Perhaps: `s/and whose containing block was/and if its containing block were/` ?

The current language "if it were a float...whose containing block" sounds like it's referring to a *hypothetical* (maybe-different) containing block of the hypothetical float, so it's not clear whether there are any size constraints on this hypothetical containing block, in the not-being-measured axis. (And this matters for cases like my jsfiddle link above, when we've got an element with an aspect ratio and a percent size in the opposite axis and a fixed-height containing block.)

I'm hoping that my suggestion ("...and if its containing block...") makes it clearer that we're **still using the element's own containing block** for this hypothetical-float, rather than some other containing block.  (Or: maybe you can think of another way of wording this which makes that clearer.)

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by dholbert
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2128#issuecomment-362384110 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 1 February 2018 19:59:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:24 UTC