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

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

From: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 14:44:44 +0100
Message-ID: <DUB405-EAS2108700992E83B499E11523A5810@phx.gbl>
To: "'Javier Fernandez'" <jfernandez@igalia.com>, "'fantasai'" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, <www-style@w3.org>
For what it is worth, I share Javier's concerns here. The stretch value was intended to be applied to the items, not to the cells. I agree the other alignments were meant to apply on cells, though. 

I think this section will need further discussion. It's only very recent that 'stretch' is an alignment value, I'm still not sure it makes sense. 

If you want this behavior, you can (and should) use a wrapped flexbox. This will give you way more stretching options.

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Javier Fernandez [mailto:jfernandez@igalia.com] 
Envoyé : mardi 11 novembre 2014 14:08
À : fantasai; www-style@w3.org
Objet : Re: [css-grid][css-align] Issues with align-content / justify-content properties


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 below.

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 13:47:47 UTC

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