- From: Oriol Brufau via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 11:32:16 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
@fantasai I'm not sure if extra complexity of the `auto` value is really worth it, but not opposed. > minimum size is zero or content-based What exactly is "zero"? Just `0px`? What about `0%` with a definite grid container size, that's probably zero too? What about a `100%` that resolves against `0px`? What about an indefinite percentage, do we treat it as `auto` during intrinsic sizing (so typically not collapsing tracks due to the stretching) and then collapse tracks if the percentage resolves to 0px when laying out for real? Or if not stretching `auto`, we collapse percentage tracks during intrinsic sizing but not when laying out for real if the percentage resolves to a positive length? That could easily lead to overflow. > no auto-placed tracks at all Why is this needed? > we need to know which of the various tracks to collapse if all the spanned tracks are otherwise empty I'm not sure if I follow. In @SebastianZ's example, not all rows are otherwise (ignoring the image) empty. @SebastianZ I would prefer to avoid extra passes of the sizing algorithm. -- GitHub Notification of comment by Loirooriol Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5813#issuecomment-2301829423 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 11:32:17 UTC