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

Re: [css-grid] Remaining Grid Layout issues

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 05:14:44 -0500
To: Manuel Rego Casasnovas <rego@igalia.com>, Mats Palmgren <mats@mozilla.com>, www-style@w3.org
Cc: 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: <2b9dfe44-669d-968c-cc86-96a01ea34e7c@inkedblade.net>
On 11/24/2016 04:19 AM, Manuel Rego Casasnovas wrote:
> 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

Yeah, I meant to say, everything that's in Flexbox, plus anything
that is trivially analogous. Those things should be stable, because
we have to maintain compatibility with Flexbox. I'm less sure of
the rest of the spec... which isn't to say it necessarily has problems,
but since it's not effectively ported from Flexbox, I'm less sure.

>>> 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.

I thought I already checked in those changes prior to CR.
Which isn't to say necessarily that nothing needs additional fixing or
clarification, but you haven't stated that there's a problem with what's

Received on Thursday, 24 November 2016 10:15:22 UTC

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