- From: danegraphics via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 23:33:21 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> Where did anyone with sufficient knowledge of the CSS specs claim this was possible? 🤔 No one told me it wasn't when I suggested it. A new keyword that is computed and non-cyclical and is close enough to `auto` to work intuitively in the desired use cases (including auto to auto) would be vastly superior to the suggested size function that is unintuitive and doesn't fully solve the issue. Here's my original suggestion: > For the new keyword, I'll call it `auto-size`, take the current formula for calculating `auto` (or a formula that functions similarly enough), and then use the final output value of that as the definite size of `auto-size`, and treat everything, including the contents, as if `auto-size` were a pixel value. Even if the contents behave differently compared to auto, even though the elements are the same size, that's okay. > > Even if there are cyclical aspects of the initial formula, the final output value is all we care about, and so long as we treat that final output value as a pixel value, and resolve everything against that, it should be useable in transitions. So why would this not work? -- GitHub Notification of comment by danegraphics Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/626#issuecomment-2052695178 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 12 April 2024 23:33:22 UTC