- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 17:13:58 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `minmax(auto,min-content) under a max-content constraint`, and agreed to the following: * `RESOLVED: we will handle min-content track sizes as a clamp on automatic sizes` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <dael> Topic: minmax(auto,min-content) under a max-content constraint<br> <dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3565#issuecomment-461242081<br> <dael> astearns: Discussed last week. Sounds like the one thing waiting on is the verbiage for what to do when spans >1<br> <dael> astearns: Is fantasai on yet?<br> <dael> astearns: Is there anyone else who wanted to go over last week's discussion or have anything new?<br> <dael> astearns: Rossen it sounds like on this item we were waiting to resolve on fantasai addressing a comment from Mats. She did in the issue. Should we call for resolution?<br> <jensimmons> oh sorry — I was totally confused. I thought you were asking for new agenda items for the call still… SORRY. That’s what I get for doing more than thing at the same time<br> <dael> oriol: fantasai proposed edits and they're not yet in the spec. I had some complaints against them and they need to be tweaked a bit. It would be better to discuss with fantasai<br> <dael> fantasai: I'm here<br> <dael> astearns: oriol did you want to discuss on the call or do it in the issue?<br> <dael> oriol: I wrote them in the issue. mostly it was that fantasai proposed to clamp as an upper limit that's the maximum of value. I thought it would make more sense to sum values rather than max of them. Some other minor corrections that maybe can be in github before making edits<br> <dael> fantasai: It's a max instead of sum because we want it to just fit within the number of tracks it spans. If it spans 50px and then one that's min-content we want it to fit in 50px plus whatever is left. If we add to it the 50px we're giving it more space then it needs<br> <Rossen> just a sed<br> <dael> astearns: It sounds to me that there are 2 issues. THe one on the agenda and another that has some ramifications on this one?<br> <Rossen> sec... having problem connecting on the phone<br> <dael> florian: I think ramifications are a follow up to the thing on the agenda<br> <dael> oriol: The item in the agenda was for the non-spanning case and Mats wanted to handle spanning case as a generalization of this and it make it more complicated<br> <dael> astearns: Okay, thank you<br> <dael> astearns: I could see two ways going forward. One is figure out the ins and outs of spanning case on the call. Sounds like discussion is between fantasai and oriol so might not be most efficient. Other is resolve on accepting these edits and if needed open a second issue for spanning case<br> <dael> fantasai: Can resolve on principle of handling min content track sizes as a clamp on automatic sizes in a similar way fixed sizes are a clamp<br> <dael> astearns: Make sense oriol ?<br> <dael> oriol: Yes<br> <dael> astearns: We're asking for 2 resolutions? One to accept the edits proposed in the issue and second is on principle?<br> <dael> fantasai: Just principle. Deal with the edits in the issue that is open on that<br> <dael> astearns: Issue on agenda needs resolution. Is resolving on the principle sufficient?<br> <dael> fantasai: I think so<br> <dael> astearns: Prop: Close the issue by resolving we will handlemin content track sizes as a clamp on automatic sizes<br> <dael> astearns: Objections?<br> <dael> Rossen: This is on #3565?<br> <dael> falken: Yes<br> <dael> s/ falken /fantasai<br> <dael> Rossen: sgtm<br> <dael> RESOLVED: we will handle min-content track sizes as a clamp on automatic sizes<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3565#issuecomment-463285045 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2019 17:13:59 UTC