- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 17:00:23 -0700
- To: Rossen Atanassov <Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 03/25/2015 04:32 PM, fantasai wrote: > On 03/25/2015 03:58 PM, Rossen Atanassov wrote: >>fantasai wrote: >>> col-width + height >>> min = used col-count == 1 ? >>> min-content : column-width * used column count >>> max = column-width * used column count >>> Implemented by: Nobody >>> >>> Rationale: >>> Any other answer results in overflow, which no intrinsic >>> size should ever result in. >>> >>> Also this case hits a number of real-world use cases, >>> and they would like the max-content size to be as described. >> >> The rational seems reasonable. Is there a reason we would ignore >> the size of the column in case column-count==1 ? The following >> seems more appropriate to me: >> min = used col-count == 1 ? min(min-content, column-width) >> : min(min-content, column-width) * used column count > > You mean, just > min = min(min-content, column-width) > ? :) > > Since a multicol can get narrower than the column width without > overflowing (which is especially an important consideration on > narrow screens), its intrinsic minimum should reflect that > behavior as well. Oops, misread all that. You're right. ~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 26 March 2015 00:00:54 UTC