W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2012

RE: [css3-grid-layout] [css3-layout] fit-content and auto sizes

From: Phil Cupp <pcupp@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 05:28:23 +0000
To: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "fantasai (fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net)" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Message-ID: <58A081B0F3FA704EAB1082E64639BB010A46BD57@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> From: Bert Bos [mailto:bert@w3.org]
> I think we can drop 'fit-content' and just call it 'auto'.

I'm fine using auto, it's what's currently implemented in IE10, however, rereading what fantasai originally wrote I'm not sure I'm getting the distinction between fit-content and minmax(min-content, max-content).

>> From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net]
>> That aside, elsewhere  'fit-content' is equivalent to
>>    max(min-content, min(fill-available, max-content))  // shrinkwrap 
>> formula not to
>>    minmax(min-content, max-content)

The minmax(p, q) function means max(p, min(fill-available, q)) doesn't it?  In this case the grid is determining what's available to the track i.e. supplying the fill-available argument to the function.

So what I'm saying is... I think auto works fine, but I'd like us to agree that the reason we're opting to use it instead of fit-content is because auto is shorter to type and not because we believe minmax(min-content, max-content) means something different that max(min-content, min(fill-available, max-content)).

In my mind all these expressions are saying the same thing:

1. Always be at least as big as min
2. Try to grow up to max
3. But stop growing if you run out of space before you get there

Received on Saturday, 10 March 2012 05:28:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 February 2015 12:35:06 UTC