- From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 17:44:01 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org
Le 17/10/2012 17:06, Håkon Wium Lie a écrit : > This would make the pseudo-algorithm simpler. Simpler is generally > better. But if we just move complexity to somewhere else (in time or > space), we may noe gain much. If we remove lines 03-10 and replace > 'available-width' with 'used-width', the input to the pseudo-algorithm > would change: 'used-width' would have to be known. What should the > spec say about finding it -- just point to shrink-to-fit in 2.1? I think that CSS 2.1 does a pretty good job at separating how a box behave "on the inside" and "on the outside". For example, block-level and table cell are two "outside" behaviors; block container and replaced box are two "inside" behaviors. All four combinations are possible. Multicol is only a new "inside" behavior, it does not affect the outside. I think it shouldn’t (directly) affect how §10.3 of css21 determines the used width. Some cases in §10.3 use the "shrink-to-fit" width, which css3-sizing terms is defined as: fit-content = min(max-content, max(min-content, fill-available)) Now, if a box happens to be multicol, this changes its max-content and min-content widths but not the above definition of fit-content or the fact that the used width of a float with 'width: auto' is fit-content. The multicol algorithm determines the used column-width and column-count during layout, based on a known used width. Determining the intrinsic max-content and min-content without layout is an entirely different job. -- Simon Sapin
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2012 15:44:32 UTC