W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2014

Re: [css-sizing] Circular definition of max content

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 11:27:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCEmWASUPuD0i7UeyDVYOoT2BFwaynsRhZiRua0ngKvxg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org> wrote:
> On 13/10/14 18:01, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Oct 13, 2014 9:57 AM, "Simon Sapin" <simon.sapin@exyr.org
>> <mailto:simon.sapin@exyr.org>> wrote:
>>  >
>>  > The ED defines:
>>  >>
>>  >> The max-content inline-size of a block container box is the
>>  >> inline-size of the box after layout, if all children are sized under
>>  >> a max-content constraint.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > And:
>>  >
>>  >> max-content constraint
>>  >> A sizing constraint imposed by the box’s containing block that causes
>>  >> it to produce its max-content contribution.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > So, max-content is what you get when you get max-content. This is not
>> a useful definition.
>>
>> Note the distinction between "constraint" and "contribution". Those are
>> different words. ^_^
>
>
> Noted. Still:
>
> max-content inline-size contribution (when the computed width/height is
> 'auto') =  max-content inline-size + margins and stuff
>
> max-content inline-size = "size after layout under a max-content constraint"
>
> max-content constraint = what causes a box to "produce" its max-content
> inline-size contribution
>
> All of these things are defined in terms of each other, and so I don’t know
> how to determine any of them.

If we've written this right (and it's possible we screwed it up),
there should be a ratchet down the tree, so that max-content is
defined in terms of max-content of *children*, not in terms of itself.

>
>>  > Also, intrinsic size computation should not involve actual layout,
>> since it may be required (through "shrink-to-fit") as one of the early
>> steps of layout itself.
>>
>> Hmm, that's badly worded. It doesn't actually require layout. I'll see
>> about rewording.
>>
>>  > http://dbaron.org/css/intrinsic/#intrinsic has a definition of
>> max-content (preferred intrinsic width) that is not circular and does
>> not involve layout.
>>
>> Preferred and max-content are not identical in all cases.
>
>
> css-sizing now makes that distinction, but CSS 2.1 and the document linked
> above do not. Pretend it says max-content.
>
> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-sizing/#max-content-inline-size has a note “This
> is called the “preferred width” in CSS2.1§10.3.5”

Sure.

~TJ
Received on Monday, 13 October 2014 18:28:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:51:45 UTC