- From: Giovanni Campagna <scampa.giovanni@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:53:05 +0200
- To: Alexis Deveria <adeveria@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
2009/4/27 Alexis Deveria <adeveria@gmail.com>: > Some issues that came up when working on my JavaScript implementation: > > 1. It wasn't clear to me what the height should be of a white space > row (i.e. " . . . ") when no height has been given to either the row > itself or the template. I believe my implementation currently sets the > height to 0, though Example IX seems to make it about 1em, or perhaps > it uses the height of the previous slot. Either way, the correct > behavior should probably be mentioned under [1] "Computing the height > of the slots" > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-css3-layout-20090402/#rowheight Really, you cannot have no height set for rows, nothing implies *, which means that space is distributed. > 2. I feel like the spec is missing some examples on how templates deal > with slot elements with given widths/heights. As I understand it these > values are ignored, except when max-content, min-content, minmax(p,q), > or fit-content are used. Do you mean ::slot pseudo-elements? Width / height don't apply to them. For elements flowed into slots, instead, width / height are considered as usual (this means that they could overflow) > 3. Some examples have suggested that template slots deal with borders > and padding the same way table cells do, but this may not be quite > clear enough. So I would recommend adding at least one more example > with expected rendering of a template with various combinations of > paddings, borders, margins applied to slot elements. Also borders and paddings don't apply. There have been a proposal for those, IIRC it implied box-sizing:border-box (thus creating a separated border model without border-spacing) > 4. I assume that when widths/heights in the template are defined in > "em" values, the base font is that of the template element, right? In > which case an row with a height set of 1em that included an element > with a larger font size would actually have part of it clipped off. Em values outside "font-size" are relative to the computed value of "font-size" in that element. So yes, "em" in template definitions is relative to the font chosen for the template element. Also remember that ::slot inherit from the template element, while elements flowed into the slot inherit from their normal position in the DOM. > > That's all I could come up with for now, but I may mention more in the future. > > Thanks, > > Alexis > > Giovanni
Received on Monday, 27 April 2009 16:53:45 UTC