[css-sizing] Restrict 'stretch' and 'fit-content' to width/height and max-*

[tabatkins]

The definitions of stretch and fit-content/fit-content() don't seem to make any sense for the min-* properties, or at least have extremely minimal use-cases (we can't think of any) and so aren't worth the effort of impl/testing.

We've gone ahead and removed them from the propdefs, just need WG approval for it.

[css-meeting-bot]

The Working Group just discussed Restrict 'stretch' and 'fit-content' to width/height and max-*.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<dael> Topic: Restrict 'stretch' and 'fit-content' to width/height and max-*
<dael> github: https://github.com//issues/1913
<dael> fantasai: TabAtkins and I couldn't figure out a good use case for using them as a min width or height. We were suggesting to drop from min.
<dael> fantasai: I can't think of a single reason you want to do it so it's not worth effort on testing and impl.
<dael> astearns: This is L3 and L4 because you want to restrict fit-content function?
<dael> fantasai: Yes, I think so.
<dael> dbaron: I find it weird because it's about exposing low level concepts. Even if I can't come up with a use case it doesn't seem implausible. It's useful to have primitive concepts exposed when those concepts exist.
<dael> fantasai: Fair.
<dael> fantasai: I don't have a strong optinion.
<dbaron> s/use case/use case off the top of my head/
<dael> astearns: I'm wonndering if there is a case where you're using custom properties that are set to one of these things and it would make sense to use that custom prop value for a set of regular min and max prop. I'm not coming up with an actual case though.
<dael> astearns: dbaron would you rather have them put back in? Or are you okay with then off for now until someone comes up with a reason.
<dael> dbaron: I'd rather put back in, but I don't feel that strongly.
<dael> fantasai: Anyone else have an opinion?
<dael> fremy: I can't find a use case either, but I don't have a strong opinion. I wouldn't want either remove or added. Either is fine. I can understand both points.
<dael> astearns: What about if we leave this for a week and bring it up at TPAC with more people and more thought for possible use cases? Or just some stronger arguments for consistancy.
<dael> astearns: All I'm hearing is a lot of I'm not feeling strongly about this.
<dael> astearns: Is this okay to leave for now fantasai?
<dael> fantasai: No problem.

[jensimmons]

I'd like to comment, but do not understand the issue enough.

fit-content = min(max-content, max(min-content, <length-percentage>));

Are you talking about removing the max(min-content, part?
And just make it minmax(max-content, <length-percentage>);?

Or I could ask it this way: How does fit-content use a minimum value now? I didn't think it did. Or, er, what does this mean:

The definitions of stretch and fit-content/fit-content() don't seem to make any sense for the min-* properties

Explanation needed. Thanks.

[css-meeting-bot]

The Working Group just discussed Restricting stretch and fit-content to width and height and resolved “Resolved: Keep them as they are in the spec (don't remove them)”.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<gregwhitworth> Topic: Restricting stretch and fit-content to width and height
<astearns> github: https://github.com//issues/1913
<gregwhitworth> TabAtkins: I missed the telecon
<gregwhitworth> dbaron: I'm a bit hesitant as it exposes primitives to the system but yeah you can't use it over here
<gregwhitworth> dbaron: I don't feel that strongly though
<gregwhitworth> TabAtkins: we didn't feel that strongly either but it felt like more effort than warranted
<gregwhitworth> TabAtkins: we use min in weird ways, fit-content especially
<gregwhitworth> fantasai: it's fine but we couldn't figure out how to use the stretch as a minimum
<gregwhitworth> fantasai: do we need this?
<gregwhitworth> fantasai: if we don't we don't need to put the effort in for testing etc
<gregwhitworth> Rossen: so do we keep it
<gregwhitworth> florian: do authors have any opinions
<gregwhitworth> jensimmons: fantasai can you explain what this is
<gregwhitworth> fantasai: would you ever use min-width or min-height of 100%, it does effectively that
<gregwhitworth> jensimmons: I'm sure people do use that
<gregwhitworth> fantasai: if that seems like a reasonable thing to use
<gsnedders> I've definitely used min-height: 100%; height: 0; in some cases.
<Rossen> q?
<fantasai> cbiesinger: Seems useful, might want to fill a screen but grow if more content
<gregwhitworth> dbaron: the other question is would you want to use them inside a calc() expression for min-width and min-height
<gregwhitworth> jensimmons: I am hesitant to remove it
<gregwhitworth> Resolved: Keep them as they are in the spec (don't remove them)
<fantasai> https://github.com//issues/1865