- From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
- Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 18:49:01 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 01/04/15 18:33, fantasai wrote: > On 03/26/2015 09:19 AM, Simon Sapin wrote: >> On 26/03/15 00:37, fantasai wrote: >>>>> col-width + height >>>>> min = used col-count == 1 ? >>>>> min-content : column-width * used column count >>>>> max = column-width * used column count >>>>> Implemented by: Nobody >>>> >>>> I think you'd need to lay out to find the column count here. Sounds bad. >>> >>> Yes. It makes layout engineers unhappy, but it's the only answer >>> that really makes sense, and it's required for a some real-world >>> use cases. >> >> This is not about happiness. It’s just that "To determine X, you first >> have to know X" is not implementable. > > I understand that circularity is bad, but I'm not seeing what's circular here. > > Given a column width and a column height and some content, > you lay out the content into columns until you run out of content. > Then you count the number of columns, multiply by the column width, > and you're done: this is the intrinsic width of the element. > > How is this circular? Oh, I see. You use "used column count" to mean "number of columns generated in an hypothetical layout where the specified column-width is used directly" whereas I interpreted it as "number of columns used in the actual layout that is eventually rendered to the screen." The former is indeed not circular. -- Simon Sapin
Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2015 16:49:26 UTC