- From: davidsgrogan via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 18:45:21 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I agree with (a), (b), (d), (e) without reservation. I don't disagree with (c), I just don't understand its relevance. I don't necessarily disagree with (f) either, I just want to bring up that the "one weird trick" situation mentioned in a previous comment above has benefits that have so far been ignored. Namely, authors would appreciate the ability to opt in to the poorer-performing but more powerful two-pass layout in block layout (i.e. I wholeheartedly agree with @fantasai's comment at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4311#issuecomment-881058999) Three comments/questions: 1. Am I misunderstanding something, or would this indeed be a compat-conserving way to hand authors a long-desired behavior they could opt in to? 1. @dholbert , above you say you "worry ... that browsers would have to start doing two-pass layouts inside of blocks in order to measure content and then resolve percentages". Agree that browsers would have to do two-pass layouts. Is the 'worry' about layout speed? Or engine-implementation complexity? 2. Seems to me the clear answer to the CSS-comment question above is '150px'. But maybe I'm missing something. So, to be clear, I'm NOT advocating for making `min-height: min-content` allow child percentages to resolve, rather I'm trying to make sure both the pros and cons are being considered. Seems like only the cons have been discussed so far. -- GitHub Notification of comment by davidsgrogan Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6457#issuecomment-930448035 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 29 September 2021 18:45:23 UTC