W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2014

RE: [css-grid] Overlapping elements & backgrounds

From: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 17:45:24 +0100
Message-ID: <DUB405-EAS1337BC82FDA804085BD670A59B0@phx.gbl>
To: "'Tab Atkins Jr.'" <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: "'www-style list'" <www-style@w3.org>, "'Manuel Rego Casasnovas'" <rego@igalia.com>
>> Why are the backgrounds drawn in z-index order for all items,
>> and then only is the content ? Shouldn’t the “B” letter be
>> rendered underneath the background of the C-box?
> Yes, this is a painting order bug.  
> Though backgrounds are of course drawn before text, elements
> are drawn whole before following siblings.

Okay, that's what I thought, too. 

>> Another question I had is: it seems Chrome renders the “B” in the
>> right padding of the B-box. I call this the “absolute-min-content”
>> rendering because it doesn’t even meet the “min-width: min-content”
>> requirement. Is it the expected rendering or are we supposed to
>> at least meet “min-width: min-content”? 
>> The latter is what I had understood from the spec, but this isn’t quite
>> as clear as I would like.
> No, there is no requirement for a box to be min-content sized.  
> In this case, the B's box is overflowing its cell, and the B itself is 
> overflowing its content box.  Where did you think such a minimum
> would come from?

>From the fact that you don't "shrink-to-fit" when you stretch-align, but only grow-to-fit. I can see the point of not shrink-to-fitting (even if I believe it should not be the default) but I certainly can't see the point of it if it doesn't even prevent the element to be too small to hold its own content. What's the use case (or reasoning) behind the current Chrome behavior?
Received on Saturday, 1 November 2014 16:45:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:26 UTC