- From: Phil Cupp <pcupp@microsoft.com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 05:28:23 +0000
- To: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "fantasai (fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net)" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
> From: Bert Bos [mailto:bert@w3.org] > I think we can drop 'fit-content' and just call it 'auto'. I'm fine using auto, it's what's currently implemented in IE10, however, rereading what fantasai originally wrote I'm not sure I'm getting the distinction between fit-content and minmax(min-content, max-content). >> From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net] >> 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) The minmax(p, q) function means max(p, min(fill-available, q)) doesn't it? In this case the grid is determining what's available to the track i.e. supplying the fill-available argument to the function. So what I'm saying is... I think auto works fine, but I'd like us to agree that the reason we're opting to use it instead of fit-content is because auto is shorter to type and not because we believe minmax(min-content, max-content) means something different that max(min-content, min(fill-available, max-content)). In my mind all these expressions are saying the same thing: 1. Always be at least as big as min 2. Try to grow up to max 3. But stop growing if you run out of space before you get there -Phil
Received on Saturday, 10 March 2012 05:28:56 UTC