- 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