CSS: padding bottom percentage incorrectly calculated when using vertical writing mode
Reported by
oliverj...@gmail.com,
Jan 17 2017
|
||||
Issue descriptionUserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_12_2) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/57.0.2979.0 Safari/537.36 Steps to reproduce the problem: 1. See http://output.jsbin.com/mizaliq/3 What is the expected behavior? I expect the same behaviour here regardless of the writing mode. The padding-bottom set on .child is 100%, which is a proportion of the container element's width. What went wrong? When using vertical writing mode, the 100% (as a proportion of the container element's width) is not honoured. Did this work before? N/A Does this work in other browsers? N/A Chrome version: 57.0.2979.0 Channel: dev OS Version: OS X 10.12.2 Flash Version: If you toggle the writing mode style off and on in dev tools, it seems to fix the problem.
,
Jan 17 2017
Is this intentional kojii?
,
Jan 18 2017
> I expect the same behaviour here regardless of the writing mode. It's not possible due to the way CSS computes layout. Edge and Gecko computes the padding-bottom: 100% relative to ICB (the window height,) this looks compliant to the spec. https://drafts.csswg.org/css-writing-modes-3/#dimension-mapping As a corollary, percentages on the margin and padding properties, which are always calculated with respect to the containing block width in CSS2.1, are calculated with respect to the inline size of the containing block in CSS3. In this case, height is not defined, so we should refer to the following section https://drafts.csswg.org/css-writing-modes-3/#orthogonal-auto a percentage of the containing block’s inline size cannot be defined, and inline axis computations cannot be resolved. In these cases, the initial containing block’s size is used as a fallback variable in place of the available inline space for calculations that require a definite available inline size. Edge and Gecko conforms to this spec, while Blink (computes to zero) and WebKit (percent to physical width) don't.
,
Jan 29 2017
|
||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
||||
Comment 1 by dtapu...@chromium.org
, Jan 17 2017