- From: Manuel Rego Casasnovas via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 10:42:18 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Just to wrap-up, as this issue has a lot of comments, I believe we
have to agree on 2 things here:
### 1) The different behavior between `normal|stretch` and any other
alignment value (e.g. `start`):
* `stretch`:
```html
<div style="display: inline-grid; grid: 40px / 40px; border: thick
solid; font: 100px/1 Monospace;">
<div style="background: magenta;">item</div>
</div>
```

* `start`:
```html
<div style="display: inline-grid; grid: 40px / 40px; border: thick
solid; font: 100px/1 Monospace;">
<div style="background: magenta; justify-self: start; align-self:
start;">item</div>
</div>
```

Right now Chromium has a different behavior for `stretch` vs `start`
(which is similar to what happens on Flexbox) but Firefox doesn't.
### 2) If we should clamp the size for tracks with intrinsic max
sizing function:
Example:
```html
<div style="display: inline-grid; width: 40px; height: 40px; grid:
minmax(0px, auto) / minmax(0px, auto); border: thick solid; font:
100px/1 Monospace;">
<div style="background: magenta;">item</div>
</div>
```
After thinking about this for a while, I agree with @MatsPalmgren
and @rachelandrew, that the grid area should be the one affecting the
clamping, so in this case the item will overflow the grid container.
So the expected result would be:

Right now Firefox does it and Chromium doesn't.
The same that would happen if you use `grid: auto / auto`, in this
case both browsers behave the same way. Which leans me towards
thinking this is a Chromium bug.
### Other
Then once we got an agreement about the expected behavior I believe
the text on the spec still needs some tweaks and clarifications. We
need to be more explicit about this to avoid confusions in the future.
And hopefully we should be able to add examples on the spec about this
too.
--
GitHub Notification of comment by mrego
Please view or discuss this issue at
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/283#issuecomment-262481269
using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 23 November 2016 10:42:24 UTC