W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > November 2020

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-grid] Note implies losing an aspect-ratio when it shouldn't? (#5713)

From: Ian Kilpatrick via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 22:58:08 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-727075301-1605308287-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
> What's the point of having them as different values, then?

My answer would be - for the default behaviour switch between replaced and non-replaced elements.

So there are two clear options here.
1) Define a "strong" stretch, and a "weak" stretch. E.g. if you have `justify-self: stretch` this is a "strong" stretch, `justify-self: normal` is a "weak" stretch. The priority list for this would be something like:
 - "weak" stretch alignment.
 - aspect-ratio transferred size.
 - "strong" stretch alignment.
 - definite size.

2) Define an aspect-ratio transferred size as have higher priority than stretch alignment, e.g.
 - stretch alignment.
 - aspect-ratio transferred size.
 - definite size.

I prefer (2) as I somewhat view a aspect-ratio with a definite size in the opposite axis the same as, a definite size in the original axis.

@fantasai any thoughts?

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by bfgeek
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5713#issuecomment-727075301 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 13 November 2020 22:58:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:42:22 UTC