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

Re: [css-sizing] Intrinsic sizing on parent, extrinsic sizing on child

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 16:50:23 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBVFrST2uFwoXVO9aw-dMr=G434_oGRUZsus9JdZnorvw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 6:01 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> On 1/4/15 8:49 AM, Robert Hogan wrote:
>> I'm pretty sure WebKit/Blink are correct here
>
> Per spec, it's not clear what "correct" would be here, since this behavior
> is not actually defined at all as far as I can tell.  Something that should
> be fixed, of course.

I think the Chrome behavior is *better*, in that it seems to match
intent well.  But I don't think it follows from the current
definitions in Sizing, which is almost certainly a Sizing bug; we've
been pretty sure for a while that our handling of intrinsic sizes of
replaced elements is wrong.  We also simply dont' define what the
min-content size contribution is of a replaced element, so the current
spec's answer to the question is mu.

Okay, so what should it say?  I suspect that the contribution should
be the size, if it's definite, or the intrinsic size otherwise,
clamped by min/max.  Assuming that a min/max-content size is
considered definite, that'll give us the desired behavior here, I
think?

~TJ
Received on Saturday, 10 January 2015 00:51:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:50 UTC