- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 16:42:07 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 05/16/2016 07:52 AM, Manuel Rego Casasnovas wrote: > > > On 13/05/16 18:52, Manuel Rego Casasnovas wrote: >> >> >> On 12/05/16 17:52, Manuel Rego Casasnovas wrote: >>> a recent change [1] in the spec makes flex sizes invalid >>> on the min slot of minmax(): >>> " <track-size> = >>> <track-breadth> | >>> minmax( <inflexible-breadth> , <track-breadth> )" >>> >>> However, the text defining minmax() hasn't been updated [2]: >>> "As a maximum, a <flex> value sets the track’s flex factor. >>> As a minimum, it is treated as zero (or min-content, >>> if the grid container is sized under a min-content constraint)." >>> >>> I believe we should change this to state that as a minimum it makes the >>> declaration invalid. >> >> And not only that, also the text in the algorithm needs to be updated >> too [3]: >> "When the grid container is being sized under a min-content constraint, >> a track with a flexible min track sizing function is treated as if >> its min track sizing function was min-content for the purposes >> of this step." >> >> But now a "track with a flexible min track sizing function" is invalid. > > And another issue when the algorithm terms are defined [4]: > "min track sizing function > If the track was sized with a minmax() function, > this is the first argument to that function. > Otherwise, it’s the track’s sizing function." > > Now that "fr" is invalid as minimum, > I guess we need an exception in this rule too. I think I've fixed this. Please let me know if it's still incorrect. https://drafts.csswg.org/css-grid/#min-track-sizing-function ~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 19 May 2016 23:42:45 UTC