Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] CSS intrinsic-size (#437)

I had a chat with @dbaron and @plinss about this, and spent some time looking at the spec, explainer and examples.

Firstly, the explainer seems to be out of date compared to the spec: there is no mention of `intrinsic-block-size`, `intrinsic-inline-size`, `intrinsic-height` or `intrinsic-width`, nor the `legacy` or `auto` value keywords.

Secondly, even looking at the spec, explainer and examples, I had trouble following what problem this proposal is solving. In particular, it was very unclear to me (even after looking at the examples) why the existing properties mentioned in the "Alternatives Considered" section weren't sufficient.

It would be very helpful to have a clear explanation/demonstration of what the precise problem is, and how the existing options behave incorrectly. The examples assert that the behaviour is incorrect, but without a clear explanation of what the desired behaviour is in each case it doesn't actually help in understanding the issue.

I would also like to understand why we have, for example, both `inline-block-size` and `inline-width` - under what circumstances would authors choose one over the other?

Finally, it seems unusual for an initial value not to be `auto` when an `auto` value exists. Could you provide some insight into that choice?

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/437#issuecomment-557286521