- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 19:07:08 -0800
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 6:53 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > On Thursday 2011-01-06 04:09 -0500, Koji Ishii wrote: >> There's a few e-mails going on in Japanese ML about 'auto' logical width in orthogonal flows, the issue mentioned in writing modes spec[1]. One person preferred 100vh option, but I'd like to understand the results of each option better. >> >> <div id="A" style='width: 300px; writing-mode: horizontal-tb;'> >> AAA >> <div id="B" style='writing-mode: vertical-rl;'>BBB</div> >> CCC >> </div> >> >> B has 'auto' logical width here, so the actual height will be: >> * max-content-size: the height of the string "BBB" >> * 100vh: the height of the viewport, so there will be vertical scroll >> * same logical width: 300px > > There's a fourth option, which I described here: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Nov/0286.html > > It works out to the height of the viewport (100vh) in some cases, > but will produce other heights when there's a constrained-height > element in-between. I think it's preferable to the 100vh option. This is indeed preferable. The interesting question is, then, does 'height:auto' on a vertical-flow box act like height on a horizontal-flow box ('fit-content') or like the measure on a horizontal-flow box ('fill')? ~TJ
Received on Monday, 7 March 2011 03:08:00 UTC