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

Yes, I intuitively agree that the 3/4 case will be the norm, and if we have
to call it "strict-ish" or similar then that's... Okay (kinda). I'm just
sticking to my remark that "strict" implies 4/4, which will be confusing to
developers.

On Fri, 18 Mar 2016, 17:55 Ojan Vafai, <ojan@chromium.org> wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>