- From: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 22:04:57 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Strong agree here. The original grid-gap behavior ended up resolving to satisfy the principles of (a) gaps acting like empty tracks as much as possible, and (b) row and column gaps acting identically. Since % tracks behave as auto during intrinsic sizing of the container, then resolve their %s against the container's size, gaps do the same thing. We then applied a *different* consistency argument to transfer that behavior over to flex gaps, but that ends up meaning that we *break* the original consistency arguments! As you say, flex items with a % main size, when resolved against an indefinite flex container, do *not* resolve; they just behave as auto the whole time. So if we think of flex gaps as being empty items, a % gap should collapse to zero (aka the auto size for an empty item). And tho we can't compare cross-axis gaps with anything (because you can't explicitly size flex lines), we can apply the "consistent behavior in both axises" argument to say that % gaps in the cross axis will also resolve to 0 if the flex container's cross size is indefinite. Agenda+ to discuss this at the next call. -- GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5081#issuecomment-630458944 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 18 May 2020 22:04:59 UTC