4 ms·

the irc log is here: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7542#issuecomment-1542505774 https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7542#issuecomment... i

the irc log is here: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7542#issuecomment-1542505774 https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7542#issuecomment... i had the same reaction, it seems like a very weird syntax. but after reading the discussion i get it: you're telling a form field to behave like a normal html element, instead of behaving like a form field. because normal elements grow to fit their content, and form fields not doing that is not normal.

ludwik 3y ago
I think it feels weird and counterintuitive because `form-sizing: normal` looks as if it means, 'I want this to behave the way form elements behave by default' (i.e., use the normal form sizing). I would 100% expect `normal` to be the default value for `form-sizing`, as it usually is for other properties. Instead, if I understand correctly, this "normal" doesn't refer to the normal behavior of form elements but to the normal behavior of non-form elements. I would understand such logic if they had used `sizing: normal` instead. But for `form-sizing: normal` to not represent normal form sizing is just... weird.
hanniabu 3y ago
`form-sizing:grow` would definitely be more intuitive
- eyelidlessness 3y ago
  “Grow” has precedent in flex-grow, which in turn has the inverse flex-shrink. It would probably be even more confusing if the term grow were used here to mean grow and shrink.
  - hanniabu 3y ago
    Good point, then maybe `form-sizing:auto`