- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 21:16:16 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-grid-1] Track Sizing Algorithm question`, and agreed to the following: * `RESOLVED: Keep working on a solution for this and take it back to the group` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2873#issuecomment-402552212<br> <emilio> fantasai: so we got an issue with a test-case with two columns, and two rows, one min-content, one auto<br> <emilio> ... the results that they want is the first result, which makes sense<br> <emilio> ... the one they get is the second<br> <emilio> ... the q for the working group is do we think we can fix it and do we want to?<br> <emilio> ... there's a compatibility concern<br> <emilio> q+<br> <emilio> fantasai: I can explain the result<br> <emilio> ... the first step is satisfying the minimum<br> <emilio> ... so min-content expands to minmax(min-content, min-content), auto expands to minmax(min-content, max-content)<br> <emilio> ... there's extra magic but that's roughly what happens<br> <emilio> ... so in the first pass we look at the items with span of 1 and the first row becomes 1 em tall, the second becomes 3em tall<br> <emilio> ... then we look at the spanning item<br> <emilio> ... and that's 10em, and since both have a min of min-content I'll distribute the extra space equally into two<br> <emilio> ... so the change we'd have to make is if you have two columns that are min-content but one has a max-content maximum we prefer distributing into it<br> <emilio> ... that's the technical direction, the question would be do we want to<br> <astearns> ack emilio<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: Currently we grow all tracks as needed fo rmin-content sizes, then another for ....<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: we'd probably put a phase between min-content and max-content<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: so do we want to pursue this or does it seem unreasoanble<br> <emilio> dholbert: is max-content special here or would a 300px be treated similarly?<br> <emilio> ... same question for min-content<br> <florian> q+<br> <emilio> fantasai: when we discussed this it seemed reasonable to try to fix, author expectation seems to make more sense<br> <emilio> ... main q is is it web compatible<br> <astearns> ack florian<br> <emilio> florian: I think we should try, accounting with dholbert's nuanced<br> <emilio> ... also cross-checking with the spanning issue discussed earlier<br> <emilio> ... but in terms of exploring yeah<br> <emilio> iank_: my gut feeling is that it's hard to check whether this is web compatible, a bit of a webcompat black box<br> <emilio> fantasai: my guess is that authors that hit this change min-height or use fr<br> <emilio> iank_: yeah for this case it's clear but for other cases not so more<br> <emilio> astearns: iank_, are you saying this is kind of a blackbox because we don't have a solution?<br> <emilio> iank_: no, I just not have a good sense of how web compatible this would be<br> <dholbert> emilio: this seems like the sort of thing you need to try and see if it impacts the rendering/webcompat<br> <fantasai> emilio: and just see if you get bugs<br> <dholbert> emilio: I don't want to argue against it, but as dholbert noted, I'm not sure min-content / max-content are special<br> <dholbert> emilio: maybe we want to generically distribute space to tracks with larger maximums<br> <emilio> fantasai: I'm not sure doing that would be compatible, we distribute evenly in a bunch of cases<br> <emilio> ... min-content is special in the sense that is specifies a desire of making it as compact as possible<br> <emilio> dholbert: not so sure, it's more about not wanting content clipped<br> <emilio> astearns: there are ways to fixing things to get what you want and by not doing anything we don't risk anything<br> <emilio> fantasai: the workaround has some side effects that might not be totally desirable<br> <emilio> astearns: so... strawpoll?<br> <emilio> (1) do nothing, (2) try to figure out a solution for this<br> <florian> 2<br> <astearns> 2<br> <rachelandrew> 2<br> <schenney> 2<br> <argyle> 2<br> <Sammy_Gill> 2<br> <bramus> 2<br> <miriam> 2<br> <TabAtkins> abstain<br> <oriol> 2, but not sure if possible due to compat<br> <SebastianZ> 2<br> <emilio> 0<br> <dholbert> 2 (weak preference)<br> <iank_> 0<br> <fantasai> personal preference for 2<br> <stewart> 2<br> <emilio> RESOLVED: Keep working on a solution for this and take it back to the group<br> <emilio> <br><br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2873#issuecomment-1641002809 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 18 July 2023 21:16:18 UTC