Re: [csswg-drafts] Proposal: content-size CSS property (#4229)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `Proposal: content-size CSS property`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: intrinsic-size is the name of the new property and value set is 'auto', 'legacy' and a length`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: Proposal: content-size CSS property<br>
&lt;dael> github:<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: With fantasai help and later edits after review with impl we drafted the property the internsic size property in L4<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Sets intrinisic size of the content. WE thought we could do it by manipluating contributions, but not workable so it explicitly sets the intrinsic size. Further discussion about how to interact with overflow.<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: This is what we discussed at TPAC and said it was cool. It's authored now, review if you're interested<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Contribution vs intrinsic summary?<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Are you familiar with difference? Contribution is what a child element will tell parent its size is when parent defines size. If the child has width 50px it will say that regardless of content<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Important to know it's border box size of the child. Content is content size which is content-box. That trips a lot of people<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Reason why we couldn't go with contribution is bc it doesn't have effect on sizing of element itself. It only effects parent's size. As defined before this property contribution is how it wants to be sized normally. Had to switch to the intrinsic size so when it tries to size itself it uses those contribution<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: I think new name helps clarify. It's using wording we have. As long as consistent that this new property does the intrinsic size it might help clear up confusion<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: fantasai and I concerned with spelling being tricky, but it's used throughout the language so we figured it was a lost cause and should use the same word<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: One point from heycam at end of issue about naming of keywords. He has a good point that legacy and auto aren't informative. Before naming something legacy we want to make sure we're certain only use case is desc stupid existing behavior<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: fantasai and I are convinced this is bad old legacy behavior and you wouldn't want intrinsic size of a scroller to report a really wide size. POint of a scroller is it's scrollable. We believe this is legacy and we do not want it. Lost opportunity to fix it but we think it is a straight up mistake and naming reflects that<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Proposal?<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: No resolution now. We did resolve at TPAC. This is a request for review.<br>
&lt;tantek> I suppose if we end up with another legacy behavior we can call it 'legacy2'<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: Resolve to accept the new names?<br>
&lt;fantasai> Issue wrt legacy vs normal wp-login.php?;reauth=1<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Probably? Let's resolve on intrinsic-size as the name with 'auto' and 'legacy' values<br>
&lt;fantasai> sorry<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Prop: intrinsic-size is the name of the new property and value set is 'auto' 'legacy'<br>
&lt;dael> emilio: Wasn't there a proposal to set intrinsic size and that's separate? Seems like it should be a size not a keyword<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: Default is a keyword that is do what we normally do<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: And you can spec a length or 2 lengths<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Objections to intrinsic-size is the name of the new property and value set is 'auto' 'legacy' and a length<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: intrinsic-size is the name of the new property and value set is 'auto', 'legacy' and a length<br>

GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2019 16:21:48 UTC