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

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

From: Manuel Rego Casasnovas via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 10:43:14 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-252584331-1476096191-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
So the new text on the spec says:
> if the grid item spans only grid tracks that have a fixed max track 
sizing function

I'm wondering if that's really what we want or not.

Let's come back to the simple example and see what we want 
```html
  <div style="display: grid; grid: 20px / 20px; width: 40px; height: 
40px; border: thick solid; font: 100px/1 Monospace;">
    <div style="background: magenta;">item</div>
  </div>
```

In this case the expected result would be an item of 20x20 pixels:
![Expected result with a fixed track 
size](https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/11602/19233572/a2b05234-8ee6-11e6-84bf-5f4105394d4b.png)

Then if we change it and we use `grid: minmax(20px, auto) / 
minmax(20px, auto);`. According to the text on the spec, as the max 
track sizing function is not fixed, we shouldn't clamp the minimum 
size.
So the expected behavior would be a item bigger than the size of the 
track and the grid container.
The tracks in this case will be both 40px. However the item will be 
bigger and will be overflowing its grid area.
![Expected result with the current text in the 
spec](https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/11602/19233568/9cfd88b6-8ee6-11e6-9c00-770d39ba7b25.png)

However, it seems to me that in this case it'd be also nice if we 
clamp the size of the item to 40x40. So the result would be something 
like this:
![Possible expected result in this 
situation](https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/11602/19233577/a780ed78-8ee6-11e6-816b-14307a1e833b.png)

What do you think?

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by mrego
Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/283#issuecomment-252584331 
using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 10 October 2016 10:43:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:04 UTC