Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-sizing] clarification around Compressible Replaced Elements and min-content size (#5665)

A few stray thoughts (I haven't fully grokked this entire issue):
    - The automatic minimum size is similar to intrinsic contributions: in both cases the preferred and maximum size constraints are applied to them as limits. In the case of an intrinsic size contribution, because the box can't get larger than those sizes even if its contents do, and in the case of the automatic minimum size because one of our design goals is that the automatic minimum size doesn't impose a constraint stronger than either the preferred or maximum size. So the cyclic percentage width/max-width behavior should apply to both equally.
    - I think the testcase you gave should have both of those images resolve the same way because in both cases is the width is definite. If it's Web-compatible and reasonably implementable, that would be my preference. It's the cases where a percentage is being resolved against an indefinite size (i.e. is cyclic) that we need to treat it as a zero-based clamp on the intrinsic size contribution / automatic minimum size. This case isn't cyclic, so we should resolve the percentage and use the resulting length.
    - The example in 5.2.1(c) needs clarification. The whole section here is about the case of cyclic percentages, but the example doesn't provide any context so it's unclear whether the statement is true only in cyclic cases or always. I think we should fix that to be clear about its context.


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by fantasai
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5665#issuecomment-791739354 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Friday, 5 March 2021 22:01:17 UTC