W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2014

RE: [css-grid] Flexible Track Sizing & Indefinite Avail Size

From: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 23:22:47 +0200
Message-ID: <DUB405-EAS42825BCB830CD7155B9AADCA5C90@phx.gbl>
To: "'Tab Atkins Jr.'" <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: "'CSS WG'" <www-style@w3.org>
>> # The used flex fraction is the maximum of:
>> # - Each flexible track’s base size divided by its flex factor.
>> Why?
> Because it's a very direct translation of what Flexbox
> does, and so seems to make sense?  What confuses
> you about it?

I don't see how this is similar to what is defined about flexboxes, but maybe I'm just too unfamiliar with it. I never played with the basis size very much.

Just to confirm, let's take an example: If, out of two columns in a grid with no child item, I specify a minimum width for the first column to be 100px, but say that it should take 10% of the free space (i.e. minmax(100px, 1fr)) while the other one gets the remaining 90% (9fr) of the free space.

Under a size constraint, there are two possible behaviors for this grid: if its size is less than 1000px, it will work like (100px 1fr), in the other cases, it will work like (1fr 9fr). 

When I position this grid absolutely, I don't expect it to reach a width of 1000px (=1*100px+9*100px since 1fr=max(100px/1, 0px/9)), but I would rather see it stay at 100px and let the value of 1fr be 0px (this is the smallest fraction that satisfies all max-content constraints).
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2014 21:23:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:24 UTC