- From: fantasai via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 19:19:10 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
@MatsPalmgren Right, I think the ED’s insertion of “computed” is wrong, and it should be “used”. Yes, “specified size” should be “preferred size”. We didn't have the term “preferred size” until recently. :/ > Also, I'm still not sure how min-size contribution results in a row base size of zero in the first grid test above. ... I think you're right, the transferred size is currently defined to override the percentage clause. I'm not entirely sure what we should be doing here, need to think about that. :/ I suspect that, since the effects of the percentage clause on replaced elements is a specified size effect, it should override the transferred size effect. Assuming that's the right way to go, we'll need to make that clear. > Also, it's currently undefined how percentages should be calculated when calculating a max-content contribution for replaced boxes. It's defined here, roughly speaking: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-sizing-3/#intrinsic-contribution The exact rules for this calculation are rather complicated (see CSS2 chapter 10) so in the interest of not introducing errors and keeping css-sizing scoped to where we could possibly get it to CR several years ago (heh) we're effectively importing them by reference. Probably worth closing this if-branch as you suggest, though, for editorial reasons. > Also, for clarity, I'm reading the "for the purpose of calculating the box’s intrinsic size contribution" in the first bullet to mean (exactly) "when calculating a min-content, min-size, or max-content contribution". Correct. -- GitHub Notification of comment by fantasai Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2674#issuecomment-392908369 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 29 May 2018 19:19:14 UTC