W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2016

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 11:18:04 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDhe6Vz+EE4c-aFUnktjwYP1bJpWCxVaORgDBhhHzJqZg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Lewis <paul@aerotwist.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Paul Lewis <paul@aerotwist.com> wrote:
> If we go with a separate property then that restores the clarity of contain,
> which is good.
>
> The concern I would have then is what this other property looks like. I
> guess it comes like flex properties, which only apply when the parent is
> display: flex?
>
> So I guess, yeah, if a developer sets this additional property along with
> width and height (does it need both?) then there's an extra constraint
> applied, but for the main case "strict-ish" just got promoted to "strict"
> and we make this sizing property, in conjunction with the other, the "super
> strict" option? :)

Nah, the idea is that you'd have something like "height-foo: auto |
pretend-you-are-empty;" (all names subject to change, obviously).  It
would be completely disconnected from 'contain', and it applies to all
elements at all times.  If you set it to "pretend-you-are-empty", then
you need to either provide a value for 'height' as well, or your
element will break in an obvious way, as it immediately collapses to
zero height.  Similar for 'width'.

~TJ
Received on Friday, 18 March 2016 18:18:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:01 UTC