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

RE: [css3-regions] auto widths and heights of regions

From: Rossen Atanassov <Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:36:58 +0000
To: Vincent Hardy <vhardy@adobe.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
CC: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Witold Baryluk <baryluk@smp.if.uj.edu.pl>
Message-ID: <9A57384B9CE9AE4F9C01F3BB5C3D88440DE70E@TK5EX14MBXW603.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vincent Hardy [mailto:vhardy@adobe.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 7:09 PM
> I will let Rossen comment further because he is the author of the document:
> http://wiki.csswg.org/_media/spec/css3-regions/auto-sizing.pdf

Thanks Vincent, this threat slipped inside my junk folder...

>> On 12-26 19:44, fantasai wrote:
>> 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.

In the typical case computing 'height: auto' on regions (especially the last one) should doable. There are complications when there are writing modes with orthogonal direction, but again that should be solvable. 

>> Wrt auto widths, intrinsic sizing for regions would be similar to the 
>> intrinsic sizing of shrinkwrapped elements across pages: that is, the 
>> min-content and max-content sizes are calculated across the entire flow, 
>> and the width is then calculated per fragment using those content sizes.

I agree that this is pretty straight forward to implement and spec (see Option 1 in my doc). There are of course degenerate cases of wide content in previous or subsequent regions that would make less than optimal layout. I am also fine with reopening this issue for regions and defining it this way - it will be much better than not having shrink-to-fit at all for sure.

Received on Friday, 27 January 2012 06:37:33 UTC

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