- From: Ian Kilpatrick via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 17:02:39 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I think this is one of the cases where this makes sense for masonry - but doesn't make a lot of sense for grid. Consider:
```
.grid {
grid-template-rows: repeat(auto-fill, fit-content);
grid-template-columns: repeat(3, auto);
}
```
The repeats have to be expanded before placement occurs, and any sizing of the tracks. When trying to evaluate the `fit-content` you need to give it the grid items some inline-size in order to perform layout to retrieve the intrinsic block-size.
None of the tracks are resolved (and you haven't placed yet either) - so this inline-size will be *very different* from what the final inline-size is, and as a result the intrinsic fit-content sizes used for the repeats will be *very different* from the final fit-content of the grid.
This will result in a lot of free-space in the tracks, or not enough tracks confusing web developers.
This doesn't occur with masonry as described in the alternate approach as the inline-size you choose will be stable across the operations.
--
GitHub Notification of comment by bfgeek
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9321#issuecomment-1823155139 using your GitHub account
--
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 22 November 2023 17:02:40 UTC