- From: fantasai via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 21:21:58 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@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