[css-grid] Clarify "Automatic repetitions cannot be combined with intrinsic or flexible sizes"

[Loirooriol]

https://drafts.csswg.org/css-grid/#repeat-syntax

Automatic repetitions (auto-fill or auto-fit) cannot be combined with intrinsic or flexible sizes.

Effectively, these are false:

CSS.supports("grid-template-rows: repeat(auto-fill, 1px) auto"); // false
CSS.supports("grid-template-rows: repeat(auto-fill, 1px) min-content"); // false
CSS.supports("grid-template-rows: repeat(auto-fill, 1px) max-content"); // false
CSS.supports("grid-template-rows: repeat(auto-fill, 1px) fit-content(0px)"); // false
CSS.supports("grid-template-rows: repeat(auto-fill, 1px) 1fr"); // false

However, these are true:

CSS.supports("grid-template-rows: repeat(auto-fill, 1px) minmax(1px, auto)"); // true
CSS.supports("grid-template-rows: repeat(auto-fill, 1px) minmax(auto, 1px)"); // true
CSS.supports("grid-template-rows: repeat(auto-fill, 1px) minmax(1px, min-content)"); // true
CSS.supports("grid-template-rows: repeat(auto-fill, 1px) minmax(min-content, 1px)"); // true
CSS.supports("grid-template-rows: repeat(auto-fill, 1px) minmax(1px, max-content)"); // true
CSS.supports("grid-template-rows: repeat(auto-fill, 1px) minmax(max-content, 1px)"); // true
CSS.supports("grid-template-rows: repeat(auto-fill, 1px) minmax(1px, 1fr)"); // true

Tested in Blink, Gecko and WebKit.

So I guess the spec should make it clear that these combinations are fine. Basically, it seems the requirement is that for each track, at least one of the min/max track sizing functions should be fixed.

[tabatkins]

Okay, clarified the text slightly, and explicitly referred to the grammar for details on what it means. Let us know if this works?

[Loirooriol]

Maybe replace "flexible" with "intrinsic flexible"? Since minmax(1px, 1fr) is fine.

[tabatkins]

No, "flexible" is covered by the "fully", same as "intrinsic", implying the same "at least one argument is fixed".

[Loirooriol]

Wouldn't "fully flexible" mean minmax(1fr, 1fr) that is invalid right now but there is some issue to add it in the future?

Basically, I don't see how "fully flexible" includes minamx(auto, 1fr) but excludes minmax(1px, 1fr).

[fantasai]

@Loirooriol In English, "or" is not necessarily exclusive.

[Loirooriol]

@fantasai Are you implying that minmax(auto, 1fr) is both fully intrinsic and fully flexible?

[tabatkins]

No, it's fully "intrinsic or flexible".

[tabatkins]

(The point of all this, tho, is that the text is purposely suggestive, not precise, and the grammar is the actual definition of the restriction.)

[Loirooriol]

Mm, OK, I see what you mean, seems a misleading wording to me but it defers to the grammar which is clear.