Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-grid][css-flexbox][quirks] Avoid percentage height quirk in new layout models (#5545)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-grid][css-flexbox][quirks] Avoid percentage height quirk in new layout models`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: Add "block box" (block level block containers), "flex item" and "grid item" to the quirks spec`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;emilio> oriol: we also discussed this in the past<br>
&lt;emilio> ... when in quirks mode percentage in block axis skip over ancestors with auto-heights<br>
&lt;emilio> ... this was required for all kind of boxes<br>
&lt;emilio> ... spec says not to do this for grid/flex containers but grid/flex items seem to be included<br>
&lt;emilio> ... impls do different things<br>
&lt;emilio> ... ff has no quirk for flex/grid items<br>
&lt;emilio> ... chromium has the quirk for both flex and grid containers<br>
&lt;emilio> ... webkit only has it for flex but not grid<br>
&lt;emilio> ... we resolved that dholbert would change the compat spec to change the container and item cases<br>
&lt;emilio> ... he investigated some cases he wasn't sure about<br>
&lt;emilio> dholbert: the most recent bit that caused it to be more complicated<br>
&lt;emilio> ... was that webkit / blink use the block axis rather than the vertical axis<br>
&lt;emilio> ... probably makes sense for ff to align with that<br>
&lt;emilio> ... but need some test-cases specially with mixed writing-modes<br>
&lt;emilio> ... the spirit of the FF behavior was that you stop at a flex/grid container<br>
&lt;emilio> ... if you hit an item then it's a block<br>
&lt;emilio> ... I don't remember to what extent we have more variability there<br>
&lt;emilio> oriol: reading in a comment that there's a condition that checks for "if an element is not a block container", we should substitute it by "block or inline-block container", to exclude grid/flex block-level containers<br>
&lt;oriol> https://quirks.spec.whatwg.org/#the-percentage-height-calculation-quirk<br>
&lt;emilio> oriol: so idea was to align with ff in not having the quirk for flex / grid items<br>
&lt;emilio> iank_: I think you need to mention grid / flex item in the compat spec for this to be correct<br>
&lt;emilio> dholbert: I think ff behavior is that we do allow flex / grid items<br>
&lt;emilio> ... if they happen to be blocks<br>
&lt;astearns> ack dbaron<br>
&lt;Zakim> dbaron, you wanted to support notion about what you traverse across<br>
&lt;emilio> oriol: per spec those are block containers but they are flex level, not block level<br>
&lt;emilio> iank_: let's be super-explicit<br>
&lt;emilio> dbaron: I support the idea of limiting the quirk in terms of what you're traversing through<br>
&lt;emilio> dholbert: one thing I'm not quite clear on whether we include flex items as termination points<br>
&lt;emilio> iank_: yes<br>
&lt;emilio> dholbert: then I don't think you need to mention them in the compat spec<br>
&lt;emilio> iank_: I think you do<br>
&lt;dbaron> https://quirks.spec.whatwg.org/#the-percentage-height-calculation-quirk<br>
&lt;emilio> dbaron: > If element has a computed value of the position property that is absolute, or if element is a not a block container or a table wrapper box, then return element.<br>
&lt;dbaron> 4. If element has a computed value of the position property that is absolute, or if element is a not a block container or a table wrapper box, then return element.<br>
&lt;emilio> dbaron: that needs to also say grid / flex item<br>
&lt;emilio> iank_: then you don't ever hit a flex / grid container<br>
&lt;emilio> oriol: we could just say block level box<br>
&lt;emilio> emilio: let's be extra-explicit<br>
&lt;emilio> RESOLVE: Add "block box" (block level block containers), "flex item" and "grid item" to the quirks spec<br>
&lt;astearns> RESOLVED: Add "block box" (block level block containers), "flex item" and "grid item" to the quirks spec<br>
&lt;emilio> dbaron: to be clear the new algo is applicable to new layout models that are also block containers<br>
&lt;emilio> ... since the existing spec already restricted others<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5545#issuecomment-1939708351 using your GitHub account


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

Received on Monday, 12 February 2024 22:23:41 UTC