Re: [css-containment] Splitting the "sizing" part from "layout" containment

FWIW, internally when we were discussing this we called it "strictish".
It's kind of a ridiculous name, but at least it wouldn't suffer from the
confusion here.

/me ducks

In all seriousness, the version of this that doesn't include size is the
one I expect to be the 90% use case for contains, so that's the one that
should sound most natural in an ideal world.

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 10:51 AM Paul Lewis <paul@aerotwist.com> wrote:

> Hehe yeah, that's fine. I think what I'm driving at is that both "strict"
> and -- fair enough -- "all" both imply that 4/4 are accounted for. I wonder
> if we need to use a different keyword for 3/4 (which I'm struggling to
> think of!), but if we have either keyword it should mean 4/4.
>
> Overall that might make the main case more verbose, but I'd prefer that
> over saying "strict is kinda strict, except it doesn't mean this last one,
> which is size. That's something you need to specify separately, so it's
> only sort-of strict."
>
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 5:40 PM Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 6:39 AM, Paul Lewis <paul@aerotwist.com> wrote:
>> > I think it's good to keep it as a single property, I just wonder if the
>> term
>> > "strict" implies that it should include "size" as well as the other
>> three.
>> > Not that I can think of a better keyword, but it's not strict if the
>> size is
>> > implicit. It feels like "all" might be a softer way to imply "layout",
>> > "paint", and "style", with perhaps "strict" meaning all four. Either
>> way I
>> > can make it work, it just didn't feel like "strict" meant "strict" if it
>> > only meant 3/4.
>>
>> Having "all" imply 3 of the 4, not all of them, seems immensely more
>> confusing to me. ^_^
>>
>> ~TJ
>>
>