On Thursday 2015-08-06 09:42 -0700, [email protected] wrote: > We (blink) would like to unprefix the intrinsic sizing keywords: > https://drafts.csswg.org/css-sizing/#width-height-keywords > > We support them for widths and for heights (though they all do the same thing > for heights) > > We were wondering what Gecko's plans for those keywords is -- are you also > interested in unprefixing? Are you happy with the keywords as specced? Would > you rather stop supporting them?
I'm largely happy with them; they were my idea (under different names) originally, although that proposal predated serious work on vertical writing modes, which makes things a bit more complicated. I haven't looked closely at the relevant specs lately, but I think the controversial spec parts are the actual definitions of intrinsic sizes, whereas the spec for the keywords is pretty trivial. Though at a quick glance I think the spec at https://drafts.csswg.org/css-sizing/#width-height-keywords for fill, max-content, min-content, and fit-content is fine, at least for the inline-size direction. (This of course requires that the actual definitions exclude the effects of the (min-/max-/)(width/height) properties, which I believe they do.) My biggest concern is probably what they mean when used in the block direction. I'm not sure we currently do anything sensible there, or that the spec has sensible definitions for max-content, min-content, and fill-available sizes there. -David -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in or walling out, And to whom I was like to give offense. - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ dev-tech-layout mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-layout
