- From: Mats Palmgren via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 20:22:30 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
After thinking some more about the 'auto' case, I suspect that applying both its min-sizing (2.1) and min/max-content (2.2/2.3) contributions is probably correct for the span>1 case. We apply both contributions for 'min-content' and 'max-content' too in the span>1 case, but not in the span=1 case. So if the goal of these changes were "make 'auto' min track sizes behave as 'min(max)-content' when sizing under a min(max)-content constraint" then the current text looks correct. If so, I think it would be equivalent to stating upfront that "if sizing under a min(max)-content constraint then treat an 'auto' min track sizing as a 'min(max)-content' track min sizing in the following rules" (for any span). -- GitHub Notification of comment by MatsPalmgren Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/500#issuecomment-248422374 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 20 September 2016 20:22:38 UTC