First, consider
<!DOCTYPE html>
<div style="min-height: max-content; height: 0; width: 200px; border: solid">lorem ipsum</div>
| Spec, Blink |
Gecko, WebKit |
 |
 |
@bfgeek told me that Blink had to deal with some breakage when they adopted this behavior, but that it's the correct thing to do. But what about stretch?
<!DOCTYPE html>
<div style="min-height: -moz-available; min-height: -webkit-fill-available; min-height: stretch;
height: 0; width: 200px; border: solid">lorem ipsum</div>(WebKit seems to stretch elements with an indefinite height that contain some -webkit-fill-available, so it's always definite)
From https://drafts.csswg.org/css-sizing-4/#stretch-fit-sizing
Formally, its behavior is the same as specifying an automatic size together with a self-alignment property value of stretch
But here Blink is not implementing this, not sure if due to an oversight.
And then the situation is that browsers are implementing stretch, but nobody follows the spec here. It may be too late for *-content, but I would like to have an agreement for stretch before it ships. So Agenda+.
First, consider
@bfgeek told me that Blink had to deal with some breakage when they adopted this behavior, but that it's the correct thing to do. But what about
stretch?(WebKit seems to stretch elements with an indefinite height that contain some
-webkit-fill-available, so it's always definite)From https://drafts.csswg.org/css-sizing-4/#stretch-fit-sizing
But here Blink is not implementing this, not sure if due to an oversight.
And then the situation is that browsers are implementing
stretch, but nobody follows the spec here. It may be too late for*-content, but I would like to have an agreement forstretchbefore it ships. So Agenda+.