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

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

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 13:53:55 -0400
Message-ID: <55CE2B33.6030807@inkedblade.net>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 14 August 2015 17:54:27 UTC