- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 10:35:51 -0800
- To: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:10 AM, François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote: >> From: jackalmage@gmail.com >> Better would be set *both* width and min-width; if you set just >> min-width it won't shrink below its initial size. > > This is already what Chrome is doing by the way. The way it's done is that there some "magic" that prevent you from making an element smaller than its initial size (at the moment you started resizing it). > > This is a problem, by the way, if you resize an element in Chrome and then rotate your PC (landscape->portrait). Indeed, because the element refuses to become smaller than its intial size in landscape mode, it can cause layout issues by being too wide with no way for the user to resizing it to a "normal" size for portrait. > > This is why I'm in favor of less "magic" in the case of user resize: magic in this case is just making sure nothing works as expected (says the one which uses the word 'magic' to describe his own APIs all the time) :-) Hm, okay. Well, in that case I'm fine with your suggested change. I suppose I don't ever really try to shrink textboxes, after all. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 19 December 2012 18:36:37 UTC