Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-sizing] Intrinsic contribution of `fit-content()` with cyclic percentages (#11805)

The CSS Working Group just discussed ``[css-sizing] Intrinsic contribution of `fit-content()` with cyclic percentages``, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: accept oriol's proposal`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;kbabbitt> oriol: fit-content() function isn't super clear what effect should be for intrinsic contributions<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... for example if you have width property set to a ? amount<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... but then max-width is set to fit-content() with percentage<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... when you are computing intrinsics, max property contains percentage, treat entire rexpression as initial value<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... seems strange because you know fit-content will be ? minimum and maximum\<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... fit-content will clamp provided value between min and maximum<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... when you use this function as a max size, it's strange to me that we will treat the entire thing as null<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> .. because ofpercentage<br>
&lt;dbaron> s/as null/as none/<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... because this can allow much greater sizes even though we clamp to something smaller<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... my proposal can be summarized as: what we do for length percentage, then we do the same for just min-content arguments<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... but then clamp between min-content and max-content<br>
&lt;iank_> +1 this makes sense to me.<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... if entire length-percentage ?? to zero, then will be treated as fit-content of 0<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... [reads remainder of proposal in https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/11805#issue-2889260003]<br>
&lt;dbaron> Yeah, I think this makes sense to me too.<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... maybe one tricky case<br>
&lt;fantasai> Finished reading the proposal, +1 from me.<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... for example if length-percentage with cyclic percentages could be treated as automatic minimum size...<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... then you cannot express auto min size with a keyword<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... or l-p in fit-content function<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... so treat entire thing as min-content<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... basically list of cases in the issue<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... not sure if people have other opinions<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... instead prefer affecting entire expression<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... e.g. treat entire function as initial value instead<br>
&lt;dbaron> One tiny detail:  is it ever possible for min-content > max-content.  If it is (although I hope it isn't), then fit-content(infinity) isn't necessarily equal to max-content.<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> iank_: I think we have enough people in IRC agreeing<br>
&lt;Rossen6> q?<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> Rossen6: any feedback?<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> dbaron: don't think we need to discuss that here, whoever edits can think about it<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> Rossen6: only seeing agreement, any objections?<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> RESOLVED: accept oriol's proposal<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/11805#issuecomment-2984920419 using your GitHub account


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

Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2025 16:26:26 UTC