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
The term "min-size contribution" is confusingly similar to "min-content contribution". The two terms are also close in meaning, but quite distinct in details, making the whole thing more confusing. We should come up with a better, more distinct name.
The current name was chosen because it's the contribution you get from paying attention to the min-width/height property (aka "min-size" property) rather than width/height like min-content contribution uses. It also reflects the interesting interaction that min-width:auto has with fixed grid tracks, where the size gets clamped to the sum of the track sizes it spans.
@fantasai suggests "minimum contribution"; it's still a "contribution" in spirit, as it's largely calculated the same way as the other contributions. But the term "minimum" is grammatically distinct from "min-content", in a way that "min-size" isn't.
I think that's an improvement, but I'm not sure it's good enough yet to be worth the change. Need some thought on this.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The term "min-size contribution" is confusingly similar to "min-content contribution". The two terms are also close in meaning, but quite distinct in details, making the whole thing more confusing. We should come up with a better, more distinct name.
The current name was chosen because it's the contribution you get from paying attention to the min-width/height property (aka "min-size" property) rather than width/height like min-content contribution uses. It also reflects the interesting interaction that
min-width:auto
has with fixed grid tracks, where the size gets clamped to the sum of the track sizes it spans.@fantasai suggests "minimum contribution"; it's still a "contribution" in spirit, as it's largely calculated the same way as the other contributions. But the term "minimum" is grammatically distinct from "min-content", in a way that "min-size" isn't.
I think that's an improvement, but I'm not sure it's good enough yet to be worth the change. Need some thought on this.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: