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