- From: fantasai via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 06:12:17 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I think my statement was indeed too general, and is only correct in the case of an auto-sized or fixed-size track. It's not true in flex- or percentage-sized tracks, or those with a minmax() function and insufficient grid container space to reach the max. I don't think we should have stretching override the minimum specified by `min-width` or `min-height`, as it never does that. That should remain true whether `min-width` is set to a fixed size, a keyword like `min-content`, or `auto`. We can modify what `auto` means to the extent that it improves outcomes, but `stretch` shouldn't be special in its ability to override the minimum. Currently the spec modifies the automatic minimum to accommodate fixed track sizes. It does this by reducing the automatic minimum size--regardless of the item's sizing or alignment properties--to fit within the fixed limits of the grid area. It might be nice to do this for e.g. flex tracks as well, but I fear this will complicate the sizing algorithm, as the result of flexing already depends on content sizes. I'm open to suggestions on how to make the automatic minimum as helpful and unsurprising as possible, but I also don't want to come up with some weird loopback algorithm in our attempt to do so! -- GitHub Notification of comment by fantasai Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/283#issuecomment-263104517 using your GitHub account
Received on Sunday, 27 November 2016 06:12:23 UTC