Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-grid] Consider setting base sizes to growth limits when sizing under max-content constraint (#3646)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `Grid (base sizes and growth length)`.

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;fremy> Topic: Grid (base sizes and growth length)<br>
&lt;astearns> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3646<br>
&lt;fremy> oriol: there are two issues in there<br>
&lt;fremy> oriol: one is that when sizing a grid under max-content constraint<br>
&lt;fremy> oriol: when computing the space for item with intrinsic size<br>
&lt;fremy> oriol: we only consider the base size of tracks<br>
&lt;fremy> oriol: which can be smaller than the size of the track in the end<br>
&lt;fremy> oriol: so, maybe we should consider instead of the contribution of the item minus the track size<br>
&lt;fremy> oriol: consider the contribution of the item minus the growth limit<br>
&lt;fremy> oriol: (explains the example in the issue)<br>
&lt;fremy> oriol: when the growth limit of a track increases, we could increase to base size up to that growth limit<br>
&lt;fremy> oriol: this means that when you are using fit-content<br>
&lt;fremy> oriol: you need to do first min-content then max-content<br>
&lt;fremy> oriol: this is a lot of work<br>
&lt;fremy> oriol: but chromium isn't doing this all the time<br>
&lt;fremy> oriol: they perform a single layout track, and sets a base size of the tracks which is the min-content, and the growth-limit is the max-content<br>
&lt;fremy> oriol: which is ok if there are no spanning items, but if there are spanning items the result is wrong<br>
&lt;fremy> oriol: however, with my proposal, we wouldn't need to keep track of different base sizes for these two cases, and therefore we can always do only one single layout for fit-content<br>
&lt;fremy> oriol: (one single *extra* layout pass)<br>
&lt;fremy> astearns: thanks oriol<br>
&lt;fremy> astearns: some people in the room are reviewing this in a bit more details<br>
&lt;fremy> astearns: anyone has a response?<br>
&lt;fremy> astearns: or should we continue this in the issue?<br>
&lt;fremy> rego: one question, are we sure that what the change is what authors would expect?<br>
&lt;fremy> rego: if it is, I think the change oriol proposed should get done, but maybe it isn't what authors expect, I'm not sure<br>
&lt;fremy> astearns: jensimmons_ ? do you have an opinion?<br>
&lt;fremy> jensimmons_: not yet<br>
&lt;fremy> Rossen: the issue is fairly new<br>
&lt;fremy> Rossen: maybe we need to take more time<br>
&lt;tantek> TBH I can't visualize this. Any chance of projecting an example for things like this? E.g. before/after change?<br>
&lt;bkardell_> tantek, yes please<br>
&lt;fremy> Rossen: maybe we can use whiteboards at lunch<br>
&lt;florian> I am a little confused. Does that relate to https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2356 ?<br>
&lt;fremy> fantasai: I'm in favor of that<br>
&lt;fremy> fantasai: but I would also desire to publish a new grid update<br>
&lt;fremy> fantasai: so I'm classifying changes between big changes and minor fixes<br>
&lt;fremy> fantasai: and I would want to first get to the changes that are just fixes<br>
&lt;fremy> fantasai: and continue to work on bigger changes on a more relaxed timeline<br>
&lt;fremy> rachelandrew: is that just a perf issue?<br>
&lt;fremy> rego: well, I mean, not entirely<br>
&lt;fremy> rego: but it would enable firefox to match both the spec and chrome, because in Chrome we don't follow the spec because it's both faster and easier not to follow it<br>
&lt;fantasai> s/but I would also desire/Wrt the labels, I want/<br>
&lt;fremy> rego: with the proposed change, we could both update to this new text<br>
&lt;tantek> (wants what Jen Simmons said minuted, but can't remember exactly to type it himself)<br>
&lt;jensimmons_> I said: Let’s figure this out. It should make sense for Authors. And we want to squash any interop problems…. yes.<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3646#issuecomment-467961004 using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2019 17:46:16 UTC