New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[css-grid] editorial: ambiguities in §12.5 #507

MatsPalmgren opened this Issue Sep 21, 2016 · 3 comments


None yet
4 participants

MatsPalmgren commented Sep 21, 2016

There are a couple of ambiguities in §12.5. Resolve Intrinsic Track Sizes,
under "For auto minimums: ", 2nd paragraph:

Otherwise, set its base size to the maximum of its items’ min-size contributions: the value specified by its respective min-width or min-height properties (whichever matches the relevant axis) if the specified size is auto, or else the item’s min-content contribution.

  1. it's not clear what the word size is referring to there, it could be a reference to the min-width/height values earlier in the same sentence ,or it could be a reference to the width/height properties (whichever is relevant for the axis).
    It appears that @tabatkins already agreed that it's the latter and that the text needs to be clearer:
  2. it's not clear how far the definition of the term 'min-size contributions' reaches.
    Is it the entire text that follows, or is it just up to the first comma and that the "or else the item’s
    in-content contribution" is not part of the definition, but rather something that just relevant to
    computing the value to be used for the "auto minimums" clause?
    (I will assume for now that the definition includes all the text up to the final period.)

In general, I think it would be a good idea to break out each definition of a term to
a standalone paragraph, rather than embedding it together with other text.
Perhaps in a separate chapter early in the document, like how it's done in css-sizing:


This comment has been minimized.


fantasai commented Nov 26, 2016

Okay, I did some rewording. Should be fixed now, let me know if it's still a problem.


This comment has been minimized.

MatsPalmgren commented Dec 20, 2016

Point 1 is clear now, thanks. It seems you did not address point 2?

@fantasai fantasai reopened this Feb 1, 2017

@tabatkins tabatkins closed this in 01ccb90 Feb 2, 2017


This comment has been minimized.


tabatkins commented Feb 2, 2017

Done. I just pushed the definition to a separate sentence, so there's no way to misinterpret its bounds.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment