- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 11:18:04 -0700
- 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