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'.

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