W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > May 2021

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-sizing-4] Only apply contain-intrinsic-size: auto with content-visibility: auto (#6308)

From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 16:16:00 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-848909223-1622045759-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-sizing-4] Only apply contain-intrinsic-size: auto with content-visibility: auto`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: only apply contain-intrinsic-size: auto with content-visibility: auto`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: [css-sizing-4] Only apply contain-intrinsic-size: auto with content-visibility: auto<br>
&lt;dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6308<br>
&lt;dael> cbiesinger: With contain-intrinsic-size: auto. you can get into situation where current size of element is based on css prop that's no longer set on element.<br>
&lt;dael> cbiesinger: Set explicit width, remove it, explicit width could still be rememebred and applied.<br>
&lt;dael> cbiesinger: Weird situation. Main use case for contain-intrinsic-size: auto is when in combo with contain-vsicility: auto<br>
&lt;dael> cbiesinger: Suggestion is to make it only apply with contain-visibility: auto which means this will not be visable for user but address main use case<br>
&lt;dael> cbiesinger: What does WG think. Is this a problem we care about and, if is, is this a good solution<br>
&lt;Rossen_> q?<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Makes sense to me. Happy to do this.<br>
&lt;dael> emilio: Can you remind me how we made apply contain-intrinsic-size: auto work? Does it only change behavior on the screen?<br>
&lt;dael> emilio: Can you remind me of how we made content-visibility: auto work? Does it change just the used value?<br>
&lt;dael> cbiesinger: Not sure offhand<br>
&lt;dael> emilio: Depending on how that works this doesn't solve the problem or solves it.<br>
&lt;dael> emilio: If the computed value remains auto proposed solution...needs to be more subtle<br>
&lt;dael> chrishtr: Saying script looks at bounding client rect of the offscreen element it would notice old width?<br>
&lt;dael> emilio: Yes, but not complaining. When have content-visbility: auto and becomes visible do we change content-visbility style?<br>
&lt;dael> chrishtr: No. Contain-size is removed<br>
&lt;dael> cbiesinger: Spec only changes used value of contain<br>
&lt;dael> emilio: Then this doesn't solve issue, does it? Need to be only for content-visibility: auto that are offscreen<br>
&lt;dael> cbiesinger: If it's on screen cotnain size won't apply so c-i-s doesn't apply<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> To be clear: it has no effect on the used value of 'contain'. It simply applies containments, *independent* of the 'contain' property.<br>
&lt;dael> emilio: Makes sense. Wanted that clarified<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: That satisfies your concern emilio?<br>
&lt;dael> emilio: Yeah. Seems reasonable<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Other opinions or concerns?<br>
&lt;dael> emilio: Another question- if main use case...why do we want to make this special case? I understand it can cause weird behavior. If authors not expected to use c-i-s:auto with things that don't have c-v:auto...do we need to special case?<br>
&lt;dael> chrishtr: Arguement for is to avoid poss of element on screen that dev is confused about. Only use case we know of is placeholder sizing when element is offscreen.<br>
&lt;dael> chrishtr: Had to say if would be a big problem in practice<br>
&lt;dael> emilio: I guess somebody could come with creative use cases. I don't know. I would prefer to not special case if we don't have evidence this is really confusing. not a hill I want to die on<br>
&lt;dael> cbiesinger: I don't really care so much myself. TAG and someone else had concerns and prefered the change. I'm happy not change if WG thinks we don't need to<br>
&lt;dael> emilio: TAG is generally smarter then me. If they think would be confusing I'm okay<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: cbiesinger what was the context of the review?<br>
&lt;dael> cbiesinger: Review auto value of c-i-s. I can find a link to the review<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: We can link in the issue later<br>
&lt;cbiesinger> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/624<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: There is some thumbs up and lots of not really caring about how this goes one way or the other. I want to call for objections to resolving on this<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: We can always come back, but not hearing strong pushback. Proposed behavior does make sense and will improve the behavior<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Objections to only apply contain-intrinsic-size: auto with content-visibility: auto<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: only apply contain-intrinsic-size: auto with content-visibility: auto<br>
&lt;chrishtr> Thanks all!<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6308#issuecomment-848909223 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 26 May 2021 16:16:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:27:23 UTC