- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:33:20 -0700
- To: Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com>
- Cc: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> ... >> 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. > > > This doesn't match anyone's current implementation. Both Firefox and Webkit > make it 50px. Ugh, that's dumb. I can see why one would think it reasonable to consider 'min-content' as defining a definite width that you can resolve a percentage against, but it's obviously wrong in situations like this, when it produces both underflow and overflow. But yeah, you're right, that's everyone's behavior in floats. Makes me sad. ;_; ~TJ
Received on Friday, 13 July 2012 22:34:08 UTC