W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2016

Re: [css-grid] Remaining Grid Layout issues

From: Manuel Rego Casasnovas <rego@igalia.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 10:19:56 +0100
To: Mats Palmgren <mats@mozilla.com>, www-style@w3.org
Cc: fantasai <fantasai@inkedblade.net>, Tab Atkins jr <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Rossen Atanassov <Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com>, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>, Sergio Villar Senin <svillar@igalia.com>, Javier Fernandez <jfernandez@igalia.com>
Message-ID: <e14cdc8b-85bb-7361-a437-e9b553852143@igalia.com>
Hi,

On 23/11/16 21:19, Mats Palmgren wrote:
> On 11/21/2016 05:41 PM, Manuel Rego Casasnovas wrote:
>> 1) Alignment and shipment
>> So it seems their current plan is to ship the whole thing.
> 
> We shared our plans and reasoning about that, on this list, long
> before our intent-to-ship:
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2016Oct/0011.html
> 
> IIUC, you're now implementing baseline alignment in Chrome too
> so I don't understand what the fuss is about here...

The question is what we both should ship or not. fantasai's reply to
that thread was:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2016Nov/0014.html

So, the point of my comment was to reach an agreement between all the
parties (Chromium, Firefox and the CSS WG) about which things are stable
enough to ship and which not.
Of course, Chromium wants to ship the same than Firefox to avoid
interoperability issues.

>> 2) Implied minimum size of grid items
> 
> Frankly, it seems a tad late to make spec changes in these areas
> now that the Grid spec is in CR, and after two implementors have
> sent an Intent-to-ship.
> 
> As far as I know, Firefox is implementing what the specs say
> regarding Implied Minimum Size and clamping/stretching, including
> the ratio-preserving stretching for 'normal' that the CSSWG
> resolved here:
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2016Oct/0068.html
> (that's not in any spec yet, but that's just a formality IMO)
> 
> Can you clarify what spec changes you're suggesting *exactly*?

We've been discussing this topic with the spec editors for a long time
(more than 1 year already).
In our opinion the spec was never clear enough, first it pointed to
Flexbox, later that was changed and it had its own text, now it points
to Flexbox again.

That's why we've been trying to clarify the expected behavior in this
issue (for a while already):
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/283

As you can see there, we've different implementations so IMHO the spec
text is not clear. You think Firefox is right but fantasai agrees with
Chromium behavior on stretch vs start. So we have to clarify that.
The change I propose to the spec is to clarify this so we're all in the
same page. I don't want to change the behavior but understand properly
which is the expected one as it doesn't seem clear for me.
My goal is that both browsers behave the same here. And that future
browsers implementing the spec do it too.

Bye,
  Rego
Received on Thursday, 24 November 2016 09:20:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:05 UTC