- From: Christian Biesinger <cbiesinger@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 16:04:28 -0400
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Manuel Rego Casasnovas <rego@igalia.com>, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 2:57 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > On 05/05/2016 12:02 PM, Christian Biesinger wrote: >> >> Hi there, >> >> this is sort of an extension of Rego's recent email >> (https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2016May/0026.html) and >> based on IRC conversation with dbaron. >> >> This is the relevant part of css-sizing: >> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-sizing/#definite >> >> It says "A size that can be determined without measuring content" >> >> Clearly shrinkwrapped elements' size does require measuring content, >> by definition. >> >> But per David, and per interoperable implementations, widths are >> always definite, even when shrinkwrapping. Now, the spec as written >> allows for shrinkwrapping of abspos (though I believe earlier advice >> on this list was that this should be limited to abspos that specifies >> size in some way). But it does not address floats, which also >> shrinkwrap, or flex items, or I'm sure other cases. >> >> Can we clarify this part of the spec? >> >> (CSS2.1 explicitly leaves this case undefined) > > > The CSSWG discussed this last week and decided to update the definition > of definite/indefinite so that intrinsic sizes are considered definite: > https://www.w3.org/2016/05/09-css-irc#T21-51-29 > > I'm not 100% sure what exactly this means, but we tried to make edits > to CSS Sizing to match the resolution: > https://hg.csswg.org/drafts/rev/b7b26d2bc943 > and added a clarification to Sizing L4 > https://hg.csswg.org/drafts/rev/1c734ff12cc4 > > We'd appreciate it if people reviewed the change and let us know if > a) It's correct Thanks for making the change! I'm not sure that "without consideration of line wrapping" is correct since computing the preferred with *does* take line wrapping into account for max-content, no? Also, I'm not sure on this, but what about replaced elements with an intrinsic size? Their contribution to their parents preferred size is not really "measuring text" but the size should still be considered definite, right? I wonder if explicitly saying "max-content, min-content and fit-content are definite" would be clearer? -Christian
Received on Friday, 27 May 2016 20:05:35 UTC