- From: Alison Maher via GitHub <noreply@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2025 18:51:20 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
alisonmaher has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts: == [css-grid-3][Masonry] repeat(auto-fill) and minmax() == In [css-grid-3](https://www.w3.org/TR/css-grid-3/#masonry-intrinsic-repeat) is a tentative definition for sizing auto tracks within an auto repeat. Accoriding to [css-grid-2](https://www.w3.org/TR/css-grid-2/#auto-repeat), "For this purpose, each track is treated as its [max track sizing function](https://www.w3.org/TR/css-grid-2/#max-track-sizing-function) if that is [definite](https://www.w3.org/TR/css-sizing-3/#definite) or else its [min track sizing function](https://www.w3.org/TR/css-grid-2/#min-track-sizing-function) if that is definite. If both are definite, floor the max track sizing function by the min track sizing function. If neither are definite, the number of repetitions is one." With the new Masonry functionality, do we want to keep the same definition for minmax() calculations, or do we want to allow an intrinsic size passed in to be calculated here, as well? It would be simpler to keep this same definition in masonry, but if there is a strong use case for it, that may be something we can consider. CC @tabatkins @bfgeek Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12573 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Monday, 4 August 2025 18:51:21 UTC