W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2015

Re: [css-sizing] Unprefixing min-content, max-content, etc

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 14:10:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCTV901OC-LtctjYVigmdgqdfktmwLOd_MLYdEBbabTuA@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 9:30 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> On 08/05/2015 11:41 AM, Christian Biesinger wrote:
>>
>> Hi there!
>>
>> I wanted to ask for an official opinion from the CSSWG about
>> unprefixing the new sizing keywords, i.e.
>> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-sizing/#size-keywords
>>
>> I am concerned about the various open issues that are still listed in
>> this section. Also, we (Blink) are not currently implementing
>> repudiate-floats at all and I would like to unprefix anyway, if
>> possible.
>
>
> Yeah, I think we discussed this in the WG already, with the point
> that we should be releasing these unprefixed. I'll try to dig it
> up to see if that concluded.
>
> In any case, I think it might be worthwhile to port these keywords
> into an appendix of Grid Layout, since that's likely to hit CR
> faster than Sizing, and also happens to introduce several of these
> keywords itself via grid-template-rows/columns.

That would be okay I suppose, but it would mean porting over most of
the spec.  I'd prefer to keep it together.

> The only remaining issue I have in my head is, is 'fill' too ambiguous?
> Maybe we should revert to the previous name, 'fill-available'?

No, fill-available is too long, and its spelling is complex.  I think
"fill" is okay.

>> (On a separate note, the grammar does not list repudiate-floats, is
>> that an oversight?)
>
> Probably. :) We also would also like a less-stupid name, as mentioned...
> But most cases for this will be handled by 'display: flow-root', so
> likely to drop from this level in any case.

Let's just drop it.  It existed *solely* to give us a BFC without
hacks; as you note, we have that now.  Dropping it also means we don't
have to do the more complex stuff to make it work correctly that
dbaron pointed out (in the email linked from the issue); float
avoidance really is more than just a sizing concern, as it needs to
affects positioning too.


While I'm here, let's just drop issues 4 and 5.  I don't think we
should be changing the behavior there, at least not with these
keywords/properties.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2015 21:11:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 August 2015 21:11:09 UTC