- From: Phil Cupp <pcupp@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:31:55 +0000
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
minmax(min-content, max-content) ensures that a track is sized no smaller than the largest min-content measure of a grid item occupying the track, and no larger than the largest max-content measure of a grid-item occupying the track. The "growth" from the resolved min value for a track to its max value happens while space is available in the grid, so yes that's equivalent to the fit-content formula. We can remove the auto keyword and just use fit-content instead. -----Original Message----- From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net] Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 7:46 AM To: www-style@w3.org Subject: [css3-grid-layout] [css3-layout] fit-content and auto sizes A minor grid-layout issue: 'auto' should not be a synonym for 'fit-content'. It's a waste of a good keyword. While CSS3 has wound up introducing a few aliases, it's something we have not had in CSS before and should be trying to avoid. That aside, elsewhere 'fit-content' is equivalent to max(min-content, min(fill-available, max-content)) // shrinkwrap formula not to minmax(min-content, max-content) Depending on any additional constraints in effect, though, this might wind up meaning roughly the same thing. I haven't quite analyzed the algorithms here... But for a grid element with a single track (or a template element with a single slot), my expectation is that 'fit-content' would shrinkwrap as defined above. Does it? (If not, then we should use a different keyword here.) ~fantasai
Received on Monday, 20 February 2012 19:32:44 UTC