- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 13:53:55 -0400
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 08/05/2015 12:30 PM, fantasai 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. > > The only remaining issue I have in my head is, is 'fill' too ambiguous? > Maybe we should revert to the previous name, 'fill-available'? Ah, the other issue is that 'fill's behavior in the height dimension hasn't really gotten much review, so, overall I'm definitely less sure of this one. min/max/fit-content should be safe to unprefix. The WG feels the same way, see: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Aug/0109.html ~fantasai
Received on Friday, 14 August 2015 17:54:26 UTC