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

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

From: Paul Lewis <paul@aerotwist.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 18:20:26 +0000
Message-ID: <CAMd1nsg8XBiAU11R3=CtT0kiF3dGiCFRV4T2=kpUTsfpZr0wDQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Thanks for the clarification! SGTM.

Seems like a good addition irrespective of containment. Mainly I'm happy if
strict doesn't require explicit widths and heights. If there's a way to
ensure that independently then yay.

On Fri, 18 Mar 2016, 18:18 Tab Atkins Jr., <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 18:21:05 UTC

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