W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2015

Re: [css-grid] nits on 5.1.2. Repeating Rows and Columns: the repeat() notation

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 17:14:01 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCgHkS9k2EvA-QqB78=vgLXUkwMGK_bdQT=E4KadttFKA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mats Palmgren <mats@mozilla.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Mats Palmgren <mats@mozilla.com> wrote:
> On 12/02/2015 22:57, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Mats Palmgren <mats@mozilla.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-grid/#repeat-notation
>>> Under the second bullet, describing "<auto-repeat>", it says:
>>> "... but requires definite minimum track sizes ..."
>>> This seems to contradict what is later said for "auto-fill":
>>> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-grid/#valdef-repeat-auto-fill
>>> "treating each track as its max track sizing function if that
>>> is definite or as its minimum track sizing function otherwise"
>>
>>
>> Those don't contradict, they agree.  The first says you need definite
>> minimum sizing functions.  The second says that you calculate using
>> the max sizing function if it's definite, otherwise you use the min
>> sizing function (which is definite by definition).
>
>
> Oh, I read "definite minimum track sizes" as "definite min track sizes",
> i.e. those tracks that have a "definite min sizing function".

Yes, that's correct.  All tracks are required to have a definite min
sizing function.

> Would it possible to rephrase it to avoid this confusion?

I'm not sure what the confusion is. :/

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 3 December 2015 01:14:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:58 UTC