- From: danegraphics via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2024 02:45:39 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Could it not behave like a pixel value? As in, it sizes similar to `auto` (doesn't need to be exactly the same), but it would be the equivalent of writing `500px` or whatever that results in the same box size. How do those interact with cyclic percentages and `stretch`? Why not make it the same as a pixel value? And the intermediate representation would be the same as a pixel value as well. This new keyword wouldn't need to behave exactly like `auto` in terms of sizing, but just be close enough to be able to be used for the same types of designs. But if it can result in the exact same box sizes, even if the cyclical elements around it behave differently, then that would be awesome~ And why not do it for `min-content` and `max-content` too? As I suggested with `auto-size`, adding a `-size` suffix would be a pretty simple way to get the point across, and be easy enough to understand that it behaves similarly but has a different useful function. -- GitHub Notification of comment by danegraphics Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/626#issuecomment-1879920337 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Sunday, 7 January 2024 02:45:41 UTC