- From: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 19:06:56 +0000
- To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Cc: Paul Lewis <paul@aerotwist.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CANMdWTvxS45Oh9NmPaZYs=48B_nYUEKA+WsyW58vFz9JMmgQew@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 2:29 AM Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote: > Splitting sizing from layout makes sense to me. > > As for one property vs two, I think the key question is, as it often is > when we run into this debate, do these two things benefit from the ability > to cascade separately. > > If you're using them on (web) components, I don't think there's a benefit. > Which type of containing might be different on different components, but > for each component you'll want to decide on all 4 aspects of containment. > > On the other hand, if you do want to use the containments other than > sizing in a heavy handed way all across your page, and separately add > sizing containment without changing the other aspects of containment, then > it makes sense. > > Would you? I can see adding all-but-sizing all over the place, and > specifying some-specific-combo-which-may-include-sizing on components in > the same page. But would you do all-but-sizing all over the place, and ADD > sizing without wanting to change whatever the rest was in specific parts? > If the answer's yes, then two properties are better, but what's the use > case? > This seems extremely rare to me. I think the 99.99% use case is to use one of strict or strict-compatible. Hence my thinking that we should have a single property. > - Florian > > On Mar 19, 2016, at 09:50, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote: > > There are two important use-cases here: > 1. A simple way to get strong containment without needing to understand > the intricacies of the platform and of each vendor's implementation. This > is "style layout paint size". > 2. A simple way to get soft containment that can be used broadly (e.g. via > "* { contain: strict }"). This is "style layout paint". > > #1 is an extension of #2 and I think it should read that way. Also, it's > really critical that #1 be very simple. It's just so draconian that it > can't be used as the 90% use-case. But it's really critical for that other > 10%. > > It seems to me that we just have a naming problem here, but that we can > still have a single property. I think "strict" is a good name for #1. We > just need to make a name for #2 that sounds like the pre-cursor to #1. > > Here's a few proposals: > a) strictish > b) strictable > c) strict-candidate > d) pre-strict > > I prefer (c), but would be happier with any of these than splitting this > up into two properties. > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:24 AM Paul Lewis <paul@aerotwist.com> wrote: > >> 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 Monday, 21 March 2016 19:07:36 UTC