- From: Oriol Brufau via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 07 May 2019 18:06:47 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
@MatsPalmgren If I understand correctly, the difference is in the "For intrinsic minimums" step. At that point, the growth limit of both rows is something like 18px (the height of the content). When distributing the 300px, the base sizes have already reached the growth limits, so we need to "Distribute space beyond growth limits". The spec says, > - when handling base sizes of tracks with `min-content` or `auto` minimums: any affected track that happens to also have an intrinsic max track sizing function > - when handling base sizes of tracks with `max-content` minimums: any affected track that happens to also have a `max-content` max track sizing function Here we are handling a track with an auto minimum (the 2nd row) and another one with a max-content minimum. Both conditions apply, so it's not clear among which tracks the 300px should be distributed. In fact this is completely related to `fit-content`, you can replace it with `auto` and you will get the same non-interoperability between Firefox and Chromium. And about `fit-content` it seems neither Firefox nor Chromium are obeying this: > For this purpose, `fit-content()` tracks are treated as max-content until they reach the limit specified as the `fit-content()` argument, after which they are treated as having a fixed sizing function of that argument. -- GitHub Notification of comment by Loirooriol Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3621#issuecomment-490188073 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2019 18:06:50 UTC