- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:22:19 -0700
- To: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
- Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote: > I'm torn on the special-casing of *-content. In the block direction, > *-content are defined as being equivalent to auto, so they should go down > the auto codepath in your algorithm regardless. In the inline direction, I'm > thinking of the following case: > <div style="width: 1000px"> > <div id=outer style="width: min-content"> > <div id=inner style="width: 50%"><div style="display:inline-block; > width: 100px"></div></div> > </div> > </div> > > Should the inner div be width 50px or 500px? It's not clear to me which is > better. Neither, it should be 100px. The #outer div is width:min-content, so it asks all of its children for their min-content. > The #inner div is sized as 50%, but it's relative to an indefinite width, so it's ignored and treated as 'auto'. > Under a min sizing constraint, 'auto' becomes 'min-content', so #inner also asks its children for their min-content width. >> The inline-block is 100px wide. > The #inner div is thus 100px wide. The #outer div is thus 100px wide. Don't try to be too smart about percentages; that way lies madness (like tables). Percentages are meaningful iff their containing block's size is a definite size. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 13 July 2012 22:23:06 UTC