- From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:53:13 -0800
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 12/26/11 4:44 PM, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > # 4.2.1. Auto width on regions > # > # If a region's width¹ property is computed to auto¹, its resolved value > is > # computed based on the region's ::before and ::after generated content > only. > # > # 4.2.2. Auto height on regions > # > # If a region's height¹ property is computed to auto¹, its resolved value > is > # computed based on the region's ::before and ::after generated content > only. > > Now, I wasn't there when you discussed this with Rossen, but I think this is > one of the biggest flaws with the Regions proposal as it stands today. > > The inability to auto-size elements to their content restricts Regions to > fixed-size containers, giving up entirely the flexibility and robustness of > CSS layout, which by design is able to accommodate varying font sizes, screen > sizes, and amounts of content. By forbidding intrinsic sizing, even in the > height, you are restricting the use of Regions to fixed layout designs, which > are really considered bad practice for the Web and are not something we should > be designing entire new layout systems around. > > It should definitely be possible for the last region to have auto height. I > assume an auto-height region would just consume all the content in the flow. > (Which will effectively force it to be the last region, actually.) Imo it > should also be possible for an intermediary region to have auto height and a > max-height and have that work, too. If there are technical concerns with auto > heights, let's solve them. +1. When region-overflow is set to auto, all of the content gets displayed anyway. The height it would take to contain the content should be derivable from whatever mechanism is displaying the overflow. Thanks, Alan
Received on Tuesday, 27 December 2011 00:53:48 UTC