- From: Oriol Brufau via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 11:32:31 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> If the two possible interpretations you can come up with both yield the same behavior Well I'm not completely sure if they always yield the same behavior. Can you confirm if it's the case? I still haven't pored over the part about track expansion by align-content and justify-content. > If it's not clear clear that the argument to `fit-content()` is to be interpreted as a track size like any other track size But the problem is that this is not really the case, because indefinite percentages are treated as `auto`, but `fit-content(auto)` is not allowed. I guess if it existed it would behave according to > This is essentially calculated as the smaller of minmax(auto, max-content) and minmax(auto, limit). and AFAIK `minmax(auto, max-content) <= minmax(auto, auto)`, so the fit-content would be treated as `minmax(auto, max-content)` So if you want to leave the spec as-is it's not that bad but I don't think it's completely clear. -- GitHub Notification of comment by Loirooriol Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3585#issuecomment-461383460 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2019 11:32:33 UTC