Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-contain][css-sizing] `content-visibility: auto` kinda broken by not using last remembered size with `contain: size` (#7807)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-contain][css-sizing] content-visibility: auto kinda broken by not using last remembered size with contain: size`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: Take second solution for this case. Update the last remembered size if element doesn't skip its contents.`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;astearns> topic: [css-contain][css-sizing] content-visibility: auto kinda broken by not using last remembered size with contain: size<br>
&lt;astearns> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7807<br>
&lt;dandclark> oriol: content visibility: author, elements either enter screen or get out of the screren, can loose size containment, which chagnes size<br>
&lt;dandclark> oriol: Problem if you have scrollbar<br>
&lt;dandclark> oriol: Changing size of elements can change scrollbar thumb size. Added ???-auto. Stabilizeds content-visibility: auto<br>
&lt;dandclark> oriol: ...is triggering non-stable behaior. Have example in issue. &lt;describes example in the issue>. Basically as elements gets in or out of the screen, is switching between 100-115 pixels. Getting instabilitty when shouold be stable.<br>
&lt;dandclark> oriol: So 2 possible solutions. 1st is changing requirement for using last remembered size. Now checking element is skipping contents. Instead check content visibility but still check size containment.<br>
&lt;dandclark> oriol: If content-visibility: auto ??? would still be able to use last remembered size. 2nd possibility is changing requirement for using last remembered size.<br>
&lt;dandclark> oriol: ???? So if the element is skipping contents, use last rememberd size. If not skipping contents, update last remembered size.<br>
&lt;dandclark> oriol: Vlad likes both but leans towards second.<br>
&lt;dandclark> oriol: I don't have strong opinion between the 2.<br>
&lt;dandclark> oriol: Anyone else have 3rd possibility to propose?<br>
&lt;dandclark> florian: I agree 2nd is the better one. But thinking longer may have different opinion.<br>
&lt;dandclark> astearns: proposed resolution: take second solution for this case. Update last remembered size if element doesn't skip its contents.<br>
&lt;dandclark> RESOLVED: Take second solution for this case. Update the last remembered size if element doesn't skip its contents.<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7807#issuecomment-1317388716 using your GitHub account


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

Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2022 17:26:52 UTC