- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:25:58 -0800
- To: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Tuesday 2013-02-12 16:13 -0800, Ojan Vafai wrote: > TL;DR: I think we need to add something like the following to the > css3-sizing spec: The min-measure *contribution* of a replaced element with > a percentage width to the min-content measure of a table cell is 0. I think the "contribution" idea here is correct; the 'width', 'min-width', and 'max-width' properties on an element do not affect its own min-content width, but they do affect the min-content width of its parent. When I wrote http://dbaron.org/css/intrinsic/ I used the term "outer minimum intrinsic width" for what you call "contribution" (though it also involved adjusting from content-box to margin-box widths). > Also, this quirk only applies to percentage width, not percentage > min-width/max-width (e.g. <img style="min-width: 100%"> does not apply this > quirk). I'd actually suggest avoiding the word "quirk" here, since it's not a quirks-mode behavior. > DETAILS: > There's a bit of an obscure quirk on the intrinsic size of replaced > elements with a percentage width. Their min content measure is set to 0. I > believe it only applies to replaced elements inside table cells, but I'm > not 100% sure. In Gecko it applies to all replaced elements with percentage widths or calc() widths containing a percentage (for our internal definition of "replaced element" which probably doesn't exactly match the spec's). The code is here: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/fdf15fa098d9/layout/base/nsLayoutUtils.cpp#l2871 -David -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2013 00:26:23 UTC