On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote: > On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote: > > Maybe the % thing is a bad example because we can't change that. But for > > fill-available, and if we added a new percent-like value that actually > > worked, wouldn't your suggestion that started this thread lead to 500px > > because we'd skip over the min-content div? > > Ah, yes. It would go find the nearest definite size, subtract > intervening margin/border/padding, then resolve itself. So #inner > would be 500px in this case. > So, we all agree to David's proposal then? I'm fine either way on this min-content/max-content/fit-content thing. I don't see clear advantages of doing it one way or another, in which case we should do the simplest thing (i.e. David's proposal). It's a little weird that the content of a min-content element can overflow, but I don't think there are any proposals that would guarantee no overflow. Certainly, at the very least, subtracting the padding/border/margin from the containing block is a must. OjanReceived on Wednesday, 18 July 2012 21:25:33 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:19 UTC