- From: Miriam Suzanne via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 17:17:42 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
@andruud lol, _no mercy_. If I were to do something like this now, without container queries, I would likely set eg `--qi` and `--qb` custom properties on each container with inline or block containment respectively, using JS. Then I would inherit them, and determine the other units from there: ```css [data-container~="inline-size"], [data-container~="size"] { --qi: <set via JS>; } [data-container~="block-size"], [data-container~="size"] { --qb: <set via JS>; } [data-container] * { --qmin: min(var(--qi, 0), var(--qb, 0)); --qmax: max(var(--qi, 0), var(--qb, 0)); } ``` When I think of it that way - it doesn't bother me that the two dimensions might come from different containers. I feel like each unit represents the best info we have about the given axis. So that's making me lean towards doing unit container selection for each axis individually, as though `qi` represents `@container type(inline-size)` and `qb` represents `@container type(block-size)`, and the other units are derived from those. Then we only need the (merciless) fallback when there is no container in the requested dimension. -- GitHub Notification of comment by mirisuzanne Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5888#issuecomment-864175951 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 18 June 2021 17:18:06 UTC