You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In #2356, Florian provides an example layout using a bunch of fixed-size items spanning 5 auto columns in various configutations https://unicode.org/cldr/utility/. Firefox and Chrome give similar results, but not identical; Edge gives a dramatically different result:
In Firefox, the grid as a whole is 745x590, with extra horizontal space on items 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8.
In Chrome, the grid as a whole is 760x590, with extra horizontal space on items 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8.
In Edge, the grid as a whole is 760x710, with extra vertical space on items 1, 3, 5, and 6. (Note: to get a reasonable display you'll need to float: left the grid, as Edge doesn't yet support width: max-content.)
This is all very confusing and distressing! Who's right, if any? What needs to be fixed in the spec to make this clearer?
Firefox Nightly and Chrome Canary (both on Linux) have identical layout AFAICT.
The content area is 750x580 and the used track sizes are the same in both:
We fixed a sizing bug for spanning items somewhat recently (caused by Grid spec bug #1729, fwiw). It'll be in the next release (v60). That might explain your different results if you were testing v59.
(FYI, v60 is planned to be released 2018-05-09)
On Ubuntu 17.10 I get FF59 when I do "apt-get install firefox". I'm guessing you're using an Ubuntu LTS or something? Anyway, I'd recommend always testing Nightly for stuff like this.
In #2356, Florian provides an example layout using a bunch of fixed-size items spanning 5 auto columns in various configutations https://unicode.org/cldr/utility/. Firefox and Chrome give similar results, but not identical; Edge gives a dramatically different result:
float: left
the grid, as Edge doesn't yet supportwidth: max-content
.)This is all very confusing and distressing! Who's right, if any? What needs to be fixed in the spec to make this clearer?
/cc @mrego @MatsPalmgren @atanassov
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: