W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > July 2016

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-grid] Implied Minimum Size of Grid Items

From: fantasai via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 21:21:58 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-233463006-1468876917-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Hm, I think “shrink-to-fit” as it's traditionally used is not what you
 meant. :) But yes, the purpose of min-size: auto was to prevent flex 
items from shrinking below their min-content size when flexing into a 
small flex container. We are preserving this behavior for flexible 
things, i.e. those with a flexible max-track-size.

The track sizing functions are at a sort of intermediary phase between
 the grid container and the grid item; the flex layout analogy would 
be flex lines, which don't have any sizing associated with them. 
Explicitly specifying a fixed size on the tracks is in some way 
similar to specifying that size on the grid container and in some ways
 similar to specifying that size on the grid item. But for the purpose
 of safety -- the reason we have min-size auto -- it is more similar 
to specifying that size on the grid item. Because in flex container, 
we invoke this safety when you have multiple items that, added up up, 
may or may not overflow the container. But in grid layout, you are 
fairly sure to target just the one item (in that axis): the author is 
not going to get any unexpected stacking effects.

(I don't know if that made much sense as an explanation. I'll try 
again if it didn't.)

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by fantasai
Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/283#issuecomment-233463006 
using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 18 July 2016 21:22:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:00 UTC