- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:30:42 -0400
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
- Cc: Rossen Atanassov <Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com>, Peter Salas <psalas@microsoft.com>, Mats Palmgren <matspal@gmail.com>
On 04/11/2016 04:11 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > This is about Grid DoC Issue 20 > <https://drafts.csswg.org/css-grid/issues-wd-20150917#issue-20>. > > Currently, step 3 of the Grid Sizing Overview > <https://drafts.csswg.org/css-grid/#algo-overview> requires that you > rerun the sizing algorithm once if any of the grid items had their > min-content contribution changed due to Step 2. This catches things > where their inline size depends on the available space in the block > dimensions, such as column-wrap flexboxes, or orthogonal flows, and > gives them a chance to stabilize to a "correct" size. (Theoretically > this is iterate-until-stable layout, but apparently it's good enough > to just do it twice, at least according to MS's initial > implementation.) > > This step has been present since the original Microsoft algorithm > <https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-css3-grid-layout-20130402/#layout-algorithm>, > and it's always been solely about changing min-content contributions. > But what about max-content contributions? Some parts of the algo do > care about max-content, and it seems like that would have a similar > set of problems if we didn't adjust for it. > > Can anyone think of a good reason why that step only fires on > min-content contribution changes, and not max-content? If not, does > anyone object to us making it fire on max-content contribution changes > as well? Even if we don't do that, it seems to me that if we're triggering a recalculation of min-content and subsequent consequences, any resulting changes to max-content should also be factored in. But anyway, the rough proposal for handling issue 20 is in this message: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2016Jan/0128.html and it would be good to get some feedback on it from others! ~fantasai
Received on Monday, 11 April 2016 20:31:16 UTC