- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 22:01:43 -0700
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Suppose an item is shrink-to-fit, so we need to calculate its intrinsic sizes.
Inside the item are some other boxes with percentage margins/padding.
We can
A) Back-compute the percentages:
- percentages contribute to the intrinsic size
- once the item is sized, the percentages are honored in layout
B) Treat percentages as zero:
- percentages contribute zero to the intrinsic size
- once the item is sized, the percentages are still treated as zero
C) Be inconsistent:
- percentages contribute zero to the intrinsic size
- once the item is sized, the percentages are honored in layout
Browserwise, we have one implementation of A and two of C.
It is easiest to settle on C, but C leads to overflow, which is imho a
Problem, since a large part of the point of intrinsic sizes is to avoid
overflow.
The same problem for widths (but, IIRC, not for min-widths?) is
Web-content-dependently C for block layout and A for table layout.
Which behavior do we want for Flex and Grid layout?
Sub-problems therefore are:
0a. widths in block layout = C
0b. widths in table layout = A
1. margins/padding in Block layout
2. widths, margins, padding in Flex and Grid layout
(3. min-widths in Block layout?)
~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 19 March 2015 05:02:19 UTC