W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > October 2020

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-contain] contain:size needs to mention its effect on aspect-ratio (#5585)

From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 21:45:44 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-713158240-1603230343-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
The CSS Working Group just discussed `contain: size and aspect-ratio`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: contain:size suppresses intrinsic aspect ratio`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;fantasai> Topic: contain: size and aspect-ratio<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5585<br>
&lt;fantasai> florian: I think this was oversight in the original specification<br>
&lt;fantasai> florian: contain:size suppresses intrinsic size, mentions width/height, but forgot to state that it also suppresses intrinsic aspect ratio<br>
&lt;fantasai> florian: So should say so<br>
&lt;fantasai> florian: Note this is not about the explicit 'aspect-ratio' property<br>
&lt;fantasai> florian: but about the intrinsic one<br>
&lt;fremy> lgtm<br>
&lt;fantasai> lgtm<br>
&lt;fantasai> TabAtkins: seems obvious, but this is a REC so need WG approval<br>
&lt;dlibby_> q+<br>
&lt;fantasai> astearns: proposed that contain:size suppresses intrinsic aspect ratio<br>
&lt;astearns> ack dlibby_<br>
&lt;fantasai> dlibby_: Would it be possible that 0/0 gives us the right behavior for this aspect ratio?<br>
&lt;fantasai> TabAtkins: what do you mean by both zero?<br>
&lt;fantasai> fantasai: having an aspect ratio vs having an infinite aspect ratio is different<br>
&lt;fantasai> florian: We're not doing 0/0, we're doing "no aspect ratio"<br>
&lt;fantasai> cbiesinger: what if we have 'auto' in the aspect ratio in the property?<br>
&lt;fantasai> TabAtkins: you wouldn't ignore auto, but you would look up intrinsic aspect ratio and see that you have none<br>
&lt;florian> q?<br>
&lt;fantasai> RESOLVED: contain:size suppresses intrinsic aspect ratio<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> fantasai: We get to the be the guinia pigs for modifying a Rec<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> fantasai: Do we want to reoslve publishing an updated Rec that contains a candidate change?<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> chris: Doesn't it have to be published under a particular license?<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> fantasai: Only if you're adding new features, not fixing errors<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> florian: there is another change we're likely to do to the same level of this spec<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> florian: *after that*, sure, but let's resolve just once<br>
&lt;fantasai> TabAtkins: so no publication yet, but soon. happy to guinea pig<br>
&lt;fantasai> florian: another change in terminology is proposed<br>
&lt;fantasai> florian: and another one about the definition of contain:size being phrased sufficiently vaguely that mats didn't disagree with what we were trying to do , but wasn't sure what we were trying to do<br>
&lt;fantasai> florian: and we found some potential things we might want to change about how it affects grid tracks<br>
&lt;fantasai> florian: not on agenda today, but can discuss later<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5585#issuecomment-713158240 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 20 October 2020 21:45:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:42:20 UTC