[css-multicol] allow percentages for column-gap

[chharvey]

Please allow percentage values for column-gap. An example use case would be:

.article {
  column-count: 3; /* each 30% */
  column-gap: 5%;
}

'Percentages' would be from the calculated width of the containing block.

Links

• https://drafts.csswg.org/css-multicol-1/#column-gap
• https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Feb/0494.html
• https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Feb/0572.html

As I understand it, percentages are not allowed on column-width because using column-count is preferred for a fluid layout. This makes sense, and I agree, but it sounds like a case of "we're disallowing this feature because it's bad practice." I'm not sure how that fits into CSSWG principles. Furthermore, column-width still allows vw units, which can be used to achieve (approximately) the same effect as percentages.

[frivoal]

We have an old resolution in favor of allowing percentages for column-gap. Which level do we want to put it in? Level 2 because 1 is past that stage, or 1 because the resolution itself it pretty old as well? I am happy to do the edit regardless, but I want to know where the group wants it.

[css-meeting-bot]

The CSS Working Group just discussed allow percentages for `column-gap` , and agreed to the following resolutions:

• RESOLVED: Add this to L1 and mark as at-risk.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<dael> Topic: allow percentages for `column-gap`
<dael> Florian: WE resolved 4 years ago to allow column-gap to take %. Given that it's now, is that L1 or L2?
<dael> Rossen: Didn't we take the opposite for grid-gap?
<dael> Github topic: https://github.com//issues/1321
<dael> Florian: I don't remember
<dael> jensimmons: We resolved grid-gap to take %
<dael> Rossen: If we're in alignment there's no controversy. They should be aligned.
<dael> Florian: Behavior is not unexpected. Q is where do we spec it.
<rachelandrew> grid-gap % is marked as risk in CR
<dael> Florian: We'll have to redo L1 CR, but we could do it there. Not sure there's impl.
<dael> Rossen: I would say add as at-risk and then pass it to L2. I'm fine with that. Just more process & editorial work. Other way is push to L2 now and if impl pick it up we can bring it back.
<dael> fantasai: It's trivial to edit and to impl compared to making so other stuff in columns work. I think L1 and at-risk is fine.
<dael> Rossen: That's fine. Leave this in multi-col L1 and mark i t as at-risk.
<dael> Florian: put it in L1.
<dael> RESOLVED: Add this to L1 and mark as at-risk.
<dael> Rossen: That's the hour. Thanks everyone.
<Rossen> trackbot, end meeting