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

Re: [css-grid][css-align] Issues with align-content / justify-content properties

From: Javier Fernandez <jfernandez@igalia.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 14:08:18 +0100
Message-ID: <54620A42.2010702@igalia.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org

I've been playing with the <content-distribution> values in Grid Layout.
I've got some doubts regarding some implications of considering cells
instead of grid items to interpret the Box Alignment specification. See

On 11/08/2014 01:20 AM, fantasai wrote:
> If those are the grid cells, and not (necessarily) the grid items 
> there, then that is *exactly* the behavior we're looking for in that 
> thread!

It seems that for all the values, except 'stretch', the grid cells as
"alignment subject" works pretty well, at least in the cases I've been
testing so far.

However, in the case of 'stretch' there are some issues I haven't solve
yet. According to the specification, the 'stretch' value is defined as

"If the combined size of the items is less than the size of the
alignment container, any auto-sized items have their size increased
equally so that the combined size exactly fills the alignment container,
and then clamped by their max-width/max-height constraints."

1- There are many ways of defining track sizing [1]. Which one would
be candidate to be such "auto-sized items" ? I'm assuming they would be
only 'auto' (which computes to minmax(min-content, max-content). Is that
assumption correct in your opinion ?

2- When the grid is defined, user might choose track sizes to keep
some proportionality between all of them. Shouldn't the 'stretch' logic
increase the items size keeping such proportions ?

3- how would you interpret the 'max-width/max-height constraints' in
the case of track sizing ?

[1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-grid/#track-sizing


Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2014 13:08:43 UTC

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