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

Re: [css-grid][css-align] Intrinsic size of replaced elements, and no shrink-to-fit algorithm

From: Manuel Rego Casasnovas <rego@igalia.com>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 11:43:52 +0200
Message-ID: <5559B458.8080101@igalia.com>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 15/05/15 23:38, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 2:28 PM, François REMY
> <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>>> Are you looking at
>>>>> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-align/#justify-self-property for the
>>>>> definition of "stretch"? Note that this is different than the
>>>>> justify-content definition.  In particular, it'll shrink too-big things.
>>>>
>>>> I'm speaking about the default behavior of a grid item. I'm not sure what is
>>> the default value of all the align properties in the case of a grid, though.
>>>>
>>>> I would be interested in what happens in both cases though.
>>>
>>> Just read the spec; "auto" computes to "stretch", and "stretch" makes it
>>> match the size of the alignment container (without regard as to whether it's
>>> bigger or smaller).
>>
>> Hum, this isn't what I implemented. I am pretty sure this was the behavior I initially implemented and I got feedback this wasn't the expected behavior. In particular, both IE and Chrome seem not to shrink-to-fit by default.
>>
>> Am I missing something?
> 
> What the spec now says and what early implementations are doing don't
> always match up. ^_^

This reminds me to this thread:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Dec/0312.html

The conclusion I got but that time was that even if grid items have
"stretch" by default, they're rendered as inline-blocks so they do not
shrink to fit. Maybe I'm missing something.

My 2 cents,
  Rego
Received on Monday, 18 May 2015 09:44:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:54 UTC