W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2012

Re: box-sizing + intrinsic dimensions

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 15:38:56 -0700
Message-ID: <50219900.4020409@inkedblade.net>
To: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
CC: www-style@w3.org
On 08/07/2012 12:39 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-ui/#box-sizing0
> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-writing-modes/#intrinsic-sizing
> How should box-sizing affect things that are sized based off intrinsic dimensions? Using a box-sizing other than content-box
> does weird things.
> 1. <div style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 2px solid; width: min-content">foo</div>
> I believe we'd calculate the width as the width of "foo" and then use that as the border-box size, which would get you a
> border that overlaps the text (i.e. the text would overflow).
> 2. <div style="width:100px"><div style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 2px solid; width: fill-available">foo</div></div>
> As I read the spec, the border box of the inner div would get set to 96px and it wouldn't actually fill the container.
> I suppose you're just getting what you ask for here? I'm not sure it's worth adding magic to fix these cases. Just want to
> make sure these cases are considered so we can safely ship the intrinsic sizing keywords unprefixed in the near-term.

I agree with the comments posted in reply here: 'box-sizing'
only affects interpretation of <percentage> and <length> values.

Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2012 22:39:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:20 UTC