[w3ctag/design-reviews] CSS: contain-intrinsic-size: auto, and converting to a shorthand property (#624)

Ya ya yawm TAG!

I'm requesting a TAG review of contain-intrinsic-size: auto, and converting to a shorthand property.

This adds an "auto" keyword to contain-intrinsic-size, which lets the rendering engine remember the last
used size so that the author does not have to guess correctly (with a fallback size if the element was
never laid out without size containment).
Also, longhand properties were added, including logical axes: contain-intrinsic-width, contain-intrinsic-height, contain-intrinsic-block-size, contain-intrinsic-inline-size

  - Explainer¹ (minimally containing user needs and example code): https://gist.github.com/cbiesinger/f2378dbcd215495c3a1daf9696a8e91f

  - Specification URL: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-sizing-4/#propdef-contain-intrinsic-size

  - Tests: not written yet; I am filing this review before implementation and test writing has started.
  - Security and Privacy self-review²: n/a
  - GitHub repo (if you prefer feedback filed there): https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues

  - Primary contacts (and their relationship to the specification):
      - [name] ([github username]), [organization/s] (repeat as necessary, we recommend including group chairs and editors in this list)
      - Vladimir Levin (@vmpstr), Google
      - Christian Biesinger (@cbiesinger), Google
  - Organization(s)/project(s) driving the specification: Google and the CSSWG
  - Key pieces of existing multi-stakeholder review or discussion of this specification: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5668#issuecomment-759602039

  - External status/issue trackers for this specification (publicly visible, e.g. Chrome Status): https://chromestatus.com/feature/6740477866934272


Further details:

  - [x] I have reviewed the TAG's [Web Platform Design Principles](https://w3ctag.github.io/design-principles/)
  - Relevant time constraints or deadlines: Ideally within the next month or so
  - The group where the work on this specification is currently being done: CSSWG
  - The group where standardization of this work is intended to be done (if current group is a community group or other incubation venue): CSSWG
  - Major unresolved issues with or opposition to this specification: none
  - This work is being funded by: Google

You should also know that...

[please tell us anything you think is relevant to this review]

We'd prefer the TAG provide feedback as (please delete all but the desired option):

  🐛 open issues in our GitHub repo for **each point of feedback**

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAREFULLY READ AND DELETE CONTENT BELOW THIS LINE BEFORE SUBMITTING

Please preview the issue and check that the links work before submitting.

In particular, if anything links to a URL which requires authentication (e.g. Google document), please make sure anyone with the link can access the document. We would prefer fully public documents though, since we work in the open.

¹ We require an explainer to give the relevant context for the spec review, even if the spec has some background information. For background, see our [explanation of how to write a good explainer](https://w3ctag.github.io/explainers). We recommend the explainer to be in [Markdown](https://github.github.com/gfm/).

² A Security and Privacy questionnaire helps us understand potential security and privacy issues and mitigations for your design, and can save us asking redundant questions. See https://www.w3.org/TR/security-privacy-questionnaire/.



-- 
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/624