Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-sizing] intrinsic-size lost the thread 🙁 (#4531)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-sizing] determine order of intrinsic-size values`.

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: [css-sizing] determine order of intrinsic-size values<br>
&lt;dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4531#issuecomment-578214370<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: TabAtkins wanted to defer but suggested to start so we can get some discussion in the issue<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: In addition to existing resolution?<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Yes<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Order of values ties into broader CSS problem with ordering of values. Got a solid set of ording for box sides. For here it's 2 value one per axis.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: We have 2 sets of conventions in place. We have logic properties like grid shorthand and scroll-snap-align which we went vertical axis first. y first x second. Older physical are x first y second.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Question is which convention for size. Block then inline or width then height or something different?<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: That's the basic question and not very simple. There is size for page that is physical. Width then height. basckground-size is also phsycial. I think we should do width followed by height.<br>
&lt;dael> cbiesinger: Agree. Two length version of margins has height first<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: That's why when went logical we did height first. Reviewing I think that's a mistake but it's too late to fix. Physical are width height and logical are block inline.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Let's not repeat mistake. Let's keep width and height<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Agree<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Fairly convincing to be consistent with other size properties.<br>
&lt;dael> s/florian/??<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Height and width was suggested last time we talked<br>
&lt;dael> cbiesinger: Wasn't it block and inline suggested?<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Fair, yeah.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Can anyone capture argument for block then inline?<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Main argument is we're moving toward logical coordinates in syntax design. Why grid and flex and scrollsnap are logical. But there's a large list of phsycial and sizing and boxes are in that category. This is a size property it should prob slot into that grouping.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: That's what I feel. But we can argue we don't have a size shorthand so we could make it be logical.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Problem is we have background-size and size in paged media. We don't have a shorthand for box-size but we have sizes elsewhere in CSS.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Nice to shift ot logical but I think more inconsistent<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Once we figure out how to switch shorthand between logical and physical we can switch this too. That's an open issue on CSS Logical<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: THis issue seems minor but ties into a systemic problem that's not solved<br>
&lt;dael> cbiesinger: Shouldn't block property on solving systemic issue<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: People on call are in consensus on width and height. We have an impl that agrees and wants to get it implemented.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: COuld resolve knowing people want to revisit. Should we resolve or wait?<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Resolve. We can always revisit. We've spent 10 minutes and are fairly convinced<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Anyone on the call with a different opinion?<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> I'm unhappy with this being inconsistent with the existing two-value logicla properties. Can we just record this as a conversation and not resolve yet?<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Only TabAtkins who is reading IRC. Not sure if Chris H had a strong opinion. Don't think he did<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: [Read TabAtkins ]<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Let's take to the issue for another week and resolve next week<br>
&lt;fantasai> TabAtkins, yeah, but if we make it logical, it'd end up being inconsistent with background-size and page-size<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4531#issuecomment-582679429 using your GitHub account

Received on Thursday, 6 February 2020 00:31:20 UTC