[css-grid][css-align] How items with synthesized baseline affect the size of intrinsic tracks #1365

mrego · 2017-05-12T11:37:40Z

Let's try to explain an issue we're hitting while trying to implement baseline alignment on CSS Grid Layout.

The example is a bit complex, so let's go step by step:

<div style="display: grid; width: 200px; height: 200px;
            grid: auto 50px / 100px 100px; border: solid thick;
            align-items: baseline;">
  <div style="font: 25px/1 Monospace; background: magenta;">
    First<br>item
  </div>
  <div style="writing-mode: vertical-lr;
              font: 25px/1 Ahem; background: cyan;">
    XX X X X X X
  </div>
  <div style="grid-column: span 2; align-self: stretch;
              background: rgba(255, 255, 0, 0.5);">
  </div>
</div>

Columns have a fixed size, so we don't need to care about them.

Regarding rows, on the first run of the grid track sizing algorithm, to calculate the size of the first row it checks the heights of the items inside:

1st item (magenta) has a 50px height.
2nd item (cyan) is vertical, so its height has a range between 50px (the min-content size) and 300px (the max-content size).

As the 2nd row has 50px and the grid container has a fixed height of 200px, the 1st row ends up being 150px tall.

Until here everything seems pretty clear. Let's move to the funny part.

Now we calculate the baselines to apply the alignment to the items in the first row.

1st item (magenta) baseline is 25px (height of the first line).
2nd item (cyan) as is vertical we use the synthesized baseline, so the bottom of the element 150px.

We take the biggest one 150px baseline and calculate the baseline offsets:

1st item (magenta) 150px - 25px = 125px. We add a kind of 125px margin to the item.
2nd item (cyan) 150px - 150px = 0px. No changes here.

Here the min-content contribution of the first item has changed, before it was 50px, and now it's 175px = 125px (the baseline offset) + 50px (its height). So we've to do a new run of the algorithm.

In this second run to compute the size of the first row we do:

1st item (magenta) has a 175px "height" now (it's not really its height but its min-content contribution due to the baseline alignment).
2nd item (cyan) has a range between 50px and 300px.

The first row has to be now 175px height, the 2nd row is fixed so it has 50px height and it overflows the container (not a big deal as that's what happens in similar cases without baseline alignment).

Problem comes now, what should we do at this point?

Option 1)

Following the approach above, we'd recompute the baselines offests:

1st item (magenta) the baseline is 150px = 125px (from the previous run) + 25x (height of the first line).
2nd item (cyan) this item has now a height of 175px, so 175px.

The biggest baseline is 175px so we calculate the offsets again:

1st item (magenta) 175px - 150px = 25px. We move the item down 25px more.
2nd item (cyan) 175px - 175px = 0px. We don't do any change.

Then we'd stop, as the algorithm just ask to repeat it only once.
The result would be:

1st row: 175px.
2nd row: 50px, overflowing the grid container.
1st item (magenta): 50px height (with a 150px baseline offset), overflowing the 2nd row.
2nd item (cyan): 175px height, no oveflow.

Option 2)

We avoid to recompute the baselines and reuse the biggest one from the previous run, which was 150px.

Then we calculate the new offsets:

1st item (magenta) 150px - 150px (current "height") = 0px. We don't move it further.
2nd item (cyan) 150px - 175px (current height) = -25px. We move it up 25px.

Again, this is the 2nd run so we stop at this point.
The result would be:

1st row: 175px.
2nd row: 50px (overflowing the grid container).
1st item (magenta): 50px height (with a 125px baseline offset), not overflowing the 2nd row.
2nd item (cyan): 175px height (with a -25px baseline offset), overflowing the 1st row on the top and not reaching the bottom of the row.

Option 3)

As a last resort we could think on a different approach that would be to ignore the items with synthesized baseline. So in this case both items will be on the top of the first row and have a height of 50px and 150px (so the row would be 150px). But probably we don't want this.

What do you think?

tabatkins · 2017-06-21T23:08:59Z

I'm thinking that, since this is a bad situation in any case (trying to baseline-align orthogonal flows), I'm okay with the result that we currently get from the spec (option 1). Option 2 looks at least as bad, and would involve some changes I'm not confident about, and option 3 goes against the entire reasoning for having synthesized baselines.

The result isn't pretty, but it's both (a) rare, and (b) well-defined already, so I'm okay with it as it is.

javifernandez · 2017-06-27T13:13:19Z

I'm thinking that, since this is a bad situation in any case (trying to baseline-align orthogonal flows), I'm okay with the result that we currently get from the spec (option 1).

I'm ok with this decision. I didn't have any preference and current behavior is as good as any other option. The only issue worth discussing would be the fact that Baseline Alignment alters box's intrinsic size. If we end up removing that behavior, implementation would be considerably simpler.

tabatkins · 2017-07-20T19:25:09Z

The problem is that the cyan box is allowed to grow into the new space cleared out below it by aligning to the baseline of the pink box. If we can prevent that growth from happening, then the cyan's baseline will stay the same in both rounds, and the layout stabilizes in the second round.

Suggestion, then: when we do self-baseline-alignment, we add pretend-margin to both sides of the boxes, so that all the aligned boxes have identical margin-box sizes.

In this example, then, the first round would give the pink box 125px of top margin, and the cyan box 25px of bottom margin (so both have a margin-box height of 175px). Then, when we go into the second round, both boxes already exactly fit into the new 175px row height. The cyan box's synthesized baseline is still at 150px, so the pink box is already aligned with it, and layout is finished. The yellow box still overflows the grid container by 25px, but otherwise things fit together nicely.

What this means is that, if there are larger items in the row, the cyan item will not resize to fit the row. And we haven't solved that there will be some overflow in this case even though it's theoretically not necessary. But at least its size should be stabilized across cycles.

Thoughts? We're not sure at the moment whether this is only needed for self-alignment, or whether it would apply to the pretend-padding of content alignment too.

~TJ and fantasai

…on the size of the track, by ignoring them. Related to #1365.

…s with circular sizing dependencies. Related to #1365.

tabatkins · 2017-10-17T18:58:33Z

Our current proposal is to simply detect when there's a circularity in sizing for baseline-aligned things (that is, when an item depends on the size of the track), and disable their baseline alignment so that they fall back to start/end alignment. In the first example in this thread, then, the first image is also the final one, because the teal item is no longer baseline-aligning (and becomes start-aligned instead) and the magenta item now has nothing else to baseline-align to (and so start-aligns as much as possible).

We considered just ignoring the circular items for sizing purposes (the step added in #1039) but still allowing it to baseline-align at the end of layout like normal, but in the common case this will cause the item to overflow upwards, and we can't come up with a single use-case where this seems desired in the first place. (Hence the changes added/reverted above.)

Thoughts?

javifernandez · 2017-10-30T14:01:34Z

I think this simplification makes sense. I agree it will solve these and many other cases, related to baseline regular and orthogonal items.

Shouldn't we add something regarding ignoring the circular items for baseline-alignment purposes ? Perhaps we can add something here:

https://drafts.csswg.org/css-align-3/#baseline-values

We could state there that items with a size dependent on its content area (in the appropriated axis) don't share the baseline alignment context.

css-meeting-bot · 2017-11-22T17:35:54Z

The Working Group just discussed How items with synthesized baseline affect the size of intrinsic tracks, and agreed to the following resolutions:

RESOLVED: When the track depends on the size of its contents and the item depends on the size of the track it cannot be baseline aligned.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<dael> Topic: How items with synthesized baseline affect the size of intrinsic tracks
<astearns> github: https://github.com//issues/1365
<TabAtkins> Sorry, was finishing up cleaning the house. Logged in now
<dael> github: https://github.com//issues/1365
<dael> fantasai: We looked through this issue which is a problem with the way baseline sizing has a loop with things that depend on size of row. You can see in example we size all the items and you can see we have a circle for analysis.
<dael> fantasai: Our current proposal is to detect when we're in this case and say you don't get baseline-alignment.
<dael> TabAtkins: This case being anything that depends on size of track cannot be baseline aligned.
<dael> TabAtkins: Image with height 100% or ortogonal flow.
<dael> fantasai: Anything that depends on size of the track when track is sized based on its contents.
<dael> fantasai: We're happy to consider other solutions, but we can't figure out a reason why you'd do this.
<dael> TabAtkins: Igalia folk are happy with this resolution.
<dael> Rossen_: Have you looked at what current impl do?
<dael> Rossen_: I just ran the code sample in the issue and there seems to be mild interop.
<dael> Rossen_: This would prob. mean a change for FF and Edge.
<dael> fantasai: FF looks like it wouldn't change.
<dael> fantasai: FF isn't baseline-aligning which would mean no change in this case.
<dael> Rossen_: Maybe I got your point backwards.
<dael> Rossen_: This would be change for Chrome, not FF or Edge
<dael> TabAtkins: In so far that you don't baseline align at all yet, yeah it's no change.
<dael> TabAtkins: Chrome does require change, but igalia folk are happy so we're fine to change.
<dael> rego: We were looking. We wanted to investigate in the next weeks, but we think we're fine. FF doesn't baseline align orthgolnal so it's not change.
<dael> Rossen_: We do currently do that.
<dael> Rossen_: Looking at the 3 impl side by side, I see what you mean. FF basically doesn't do it. We do an okay job in the test case from the issue.
<gsnedders> dbaron, fantasai, xidorn: wrt counter-styles tests, there's a PR containing all the tests from mozilla-central that I posted while at TPAC
<dael> TabAtkins: If you're doing an okay job, you're not following spec.
<dael> Rossen_: Yeah. By okay job I mean slightly better then Chrome, we fit all the items in the blue section, but alignment and track sizes are pretty much the same.
<dael> Rossen_: Yeah, FF doesn't do it.
<dael> Rossen_: You're saying you guys are willing to change?
<dael> TabAtkins: Yeah. Manuel brought up the issue.
<dael> astearns: So we could resolve on this and as Edge continues to impl if you have something better propose it?
<dbaron> gsnedders, ah, https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/pull/8150
<xidorn> gsnedders: that's all? I... thought we have more...
<dael> Rossen_: Our impl is shipping. We're not changing anything. but it's rolling out with that behavior. Which means you'll have two impl matching in this case, regardless of following spec.
<dbaron> gsnedders, no, I was thinking of a different set of tests
<dael> TabAtkins: Okay. We're willing to change because the behavior is objectively bad. No one would want the behavior currently desc in the spec.
<dael> Rossen_: Okay. I'm okay with the issue.
<gsnedders> xidorn: all from that directory, excluding a couple of files that are unspec'd behaviour IIRC
<dbaron> gsnedders: there's a different directory, layout/reftests/counter-style/
<dael> TabAtkins: When the track depends on the size of its contents and the item depends on the size of the track it cannot be baseline aligned.
<dael> Rossen_: I think I spent two hours chatting with fantasai on this at the F2F in Paris and, at the time, we went back and forth and I think we were on the same page.
<dael> fantasai: I think taht was the general case. THis is a particular case with a cyclic dependency.
<dael> Rossen_: I'm not gonna object, but I'm pretty sure this won't be the last time we discuss.
<dael> fantasai: I hope someone has a solution that gets is better results if we discuss again
<dael> astearns: Proposed is: When the track depends on the size of its contents and the item depends on the size of the track it cannot be baseline aligned.
<dael> astearns: Obj?
<dael> RESOLVED: When the track depends on the size of its contents and the item depends on the size of the track it cannot be baseline aligned.

fantasai · 2017-11-27T20:15:25Z

Edits checked in! Please let us know if it needs further clarification.

javifernandez · 2017-11-30T09:30:13Z

Sorry for the delay, I'm still implementing a prototype of the new algorithm to play with some orthogonal cases. As I said before, I think the new text addresses the problems identified in this issue, but I think we may have to add some minor changes to the current text to deal properly with some orthogonal cases.

I'll provide the required examples soon and will define the WPT when I started the actual implementation.

mrego · 2017-11-30T20:45:12Z

Just as a summary I'm attaching an image showing the behavior of the example from the first comment on the different browsers and how it'd work with the new proposal.

The situation is:

Chromium: Needs changes.
Firefox: It's fine because it doesn't apply baseline to orthogonal flows.
Edge: Needs changes.
Safari: It's not implementing baseline yet, so I'm not even adding a screenshot for it.

javifernandez · 2017-11-30T23:00:56Z

The new text added states the following:

https://drafts.csswg.org/css-grid/#algo-baseline-shims

Since grid items whose own size depends on the size of an intrinsically-sized track do not participate in baseline alignment, they are not shimmed.

Perhaps I'm understanding it wrong, but I've got the impression that it implies that such items are excluded of participating on baseline alignment on any axis I don't think that's necessary, nor desirable, since the only way of defining baseline alignment along the column axis is using orthogonal items.

I'd like the new text to allow baseline in both dimensions, like this:

What do you think about being more specific about which baseline axis the item doesn't participate on ?

tabatkins · 2017-12-01T19:21:53Z

@mrego Correct.

@javifernandez

Perhaps I'm understanding it wrong, but I've got the impression that it implies that such items are excluded of participating on baseline alignment on any axis I don't think that's necessary, nor desirable, since the only way of defining baseline alignment along the column axis is using orthogonal items.

Notes are not normative, they're just reminders! If you follow the link to the actual normative text in chapters 10.3 and 10.4, it's clear that the "doesn't baseline-align" is per-axis.

javifernandez · 2017-12-01T21:47:28Z

Yes, it's indeed clear, thanks.

We have identified several cases where the Baseline Alignment accounts for the grid's intrinsic size. Since we depend on the track sizing algorithm to compute the grid's intrinsic size, the only way to handle all these cases is to integrate the baseline alignment logic in the algorithm. Additionally, the CSSWG has identified several cases that can't be solved properly; such cases have in common that they imply cyclic dependencies between the item's and grid area's size. The CSSWG has resolved that these items don't participate in baseline alignment: w3c/csswg-drafts#1365 There are also other related issues with some examples and relevant discussions about this topic: w3c/csswg-drafts#1039 w3c/csswg-drafts#1409 Bug: 704713 Change-Id: I817b16eb43aa76f4827deb8f1f20efb7fde3dc22

We have identified several cases where the Baseline Alignment accounts for the grid's intrinsic size. Since we depend on the track sizing algorithm to compute the grid's intrinsic size, the only way to handle all these cases is to integrate the baseline alignment logic in the algorithm. Additionally, the CSSWG has identified several cases that can't be solved properly; such cases have in common that they imply cyclic dependencies between the item's and grid area's size. The CSSWG has resolved that these items don't participate in baseline alignment: w3c/csswg-drafts#1365 There are also other related issues with some examples and relevant discussions about this topic: w3c/csswg-drafts#1039 w3c/csswg-drafts#1409 Bug: 704713 Change-Id: I817b16eb43aa76f4827deb8f1f20efb7fde3dc22 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/923261 Commit-Queue: Javier Fernandez <jfernandez@igalia.com> Reviewed-by: Sergio Villar <svillar@igalia.com> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#562406}

…tracks sizing algorithm, a=testonly Automatic update from web-platform-tests[css-grid] Baseline alignment inside the tracks sizing algorithm We have identified several cases where the Baseline Alignment accounts for the grid's intrinsic size. Since we depend on the track sizing algorithm to compute the grid's intrinsic size, the only way to handle all these cases is to integrate the baseline alignment logic in the algorithm. Additionally, the CSSWG has identified several cases that can't be solved properly; such cases have in common that they imply cyclic dependencies between the item's and grid area's size. The CSSWG has resolved that these items don't participate in baseline alignment: w3c/csswg-drafts#1365 There are also other related issues with some examples and relevant discussions about this topic: w3c/csswg-drafts#1039 w3c/csswg-drafts#1409 Bug: 704713 Change-Id: I817b16eb43aa76f4827deb8f1f20efb7fde3dc22 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/923261 Commit-Queue: Javier Fernandez <jfernandez@igalia.com> Reviewed-by: Sergio Villar <svillar@igalia.com> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#562406} -- wpt-commits: 82b278966038f26cb83ceeb67404b0ce7e13a74c wpt-pr: 9553

…tracks sizing algorithm, a=testonly Automatic update from web-platform-tests[css-grid] Baseline alignment inside the tracks sizing algorithm We have identified several cases where the Baseline Alignment accounts for the grid's intrinsic size. Since we depend on the track sizing algorithm to compute the grid's intrinsic size, the only way to handle all these cases is to integrate the baseline alignment logic in the algorithm. Additionally, the CSSWG has identified several cases that can't be solved properly; such cases have in common that they imply cyclic dependencies between the item's and grid area's size. The CSSWG has resolved that these items don't participate in baseline alignment: w3c/csswg-drafts#1365 There are also other related issues with some examples and relevant discussions about this topic: w3c/csswg-drafts#1039 w3c/csswg-drafts#1409 Bug: 704713 Change-Id: I817b16eb43aa76f4827deb8f1f20efb7fde3dc22 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/923261 Commit-Queue: Javier Fernandez <jfernandezigalia.com> Reviewed-by: Sergio Villar <svillarigalia.com> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master{#562406} -- wpt-commits: 82b278966038f26cb83ceeb67404b0ce7e13a74c wpt-pr: 9553 UltraBlame original commit: 00d30e4a61583727bb9cde10fb27957b2e9731f9

mrego · 2019-11-22T08:29:12Z

Test case has been merged: web-platform-tests/wpt#8580

mrego added css-align-3 Current Work css-grid-1 labels May 12, 2017

fantasai added the Needs Feedback/Review label Jun 21, 2017

fantasai mentioned this issue Jun 27, 2017

[css-align] baseline content-alignment shouldn't be able to change intrinsic sizes #1409

Open

tabatkins mentioned this issue Jul 5, 2017

[css-align][css-grid] Baseline self-alignment may affect the intrinsic size contribution of the alignment subject. #1039

Closed

fantasai added the Agenda+ F2F label Jul 5, 2017

astearns removed the Agenda+ F2F label Aug 1, 2017

tabatkins added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 13, 2017

[css-grid] Try to handle baseline-aligned items whose height depends …

77ef92c

…on the size of the track, by ignoring them. Related to #1365.

tabatkins added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 17, 2017

[css-grid] Revert early attempt at fixing baseline-alignment for item…

7aa7522

…s with circular sizing dependencies. Related to #1365.

tabatkins added the Agenda+ label Nov 14, 2017

css-meeting-bot removed the Agenda+ label Nov 22, 2017

fantasai added Closed Accepted by CSSWG Resolution Needs Edits and removed Needs Feedback/Review labels Nov 27, 2017

fantasai closed this as completed in 1874f83 Nov 27, 2017

fantasai added Needs Testcase (WPT) and removed Needs Edits labels Nov 27, 2017

fantasai mentioned this issue Dec 6, 2017

[css-grid-1] Add test for exclusion of cyclic-sizing-dependency items from baseline alignment. web-platform-tests/wpt#8580

Merged

fantasai added the Commenter Satisfied Commenter has indicated satisfaction with the resolution / edits. label Dec 6, 2017

chromium-wpt-export-bot mentioned this issue Feb 16, 2018

[css-grid] Baseline alignment inside the tracks sizing algorithm web-platform-tests/wpt#9553

Merged

chromium-wpt-export-bot mentioned this issue May 31, 2018

[css-grid] Baseline alignment inside the tracks sizing algorithm web-platform-tests/wpt#11265

Closed

fantasai added the Tracked in DoC label Jan 22, 2019

fantasai added this to the css-grid-1 CR 2016-09-29+ milestone Jan 22, 2019

mrego removed the Needs Testcase (WPT) label Nov 22, 2019

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

[css-grid][css-align] How items with synthesized baseline affect the size of intrinsic tracks #1365

[css-grid][css-align] How items with synthesized baseline affect the size of intrinsic tracks #1365

mrego commented May 12, 2017

tabatkins commented Jun 21, 2017

javifernandez commented Jun 27, 2017

tabatkins commented Jul 20, 2017 •

edited by fantasai

Loading

tabatkins commented Oct 17, 2017

javifernandez commented Oct 30, 2017

css-meeting-bot commented Nov 22, 2017

fantasai commented Nov 27, 2017

javifernandez commented Nov 30, 2017

mrego commented Nov 30, 2017

javifernandez commented Nov 30, 2017

tabatkins commented Dec 1, 2017

javifernandez commented Dec 1, 2017

mrego commented Nov 22, 2019

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

[css-grid][css-align] How items with synthesized baseline affect the size of intrinsic tracks #1365

[css-grid][css-align] How items with synthesized baseline affect the size of intrinsic tracks #1365

Comments

mrego commented May 12, 2017

Option 1)

Option 2)

Option 3)

tabatkins commented Jun 21, 2017

javifernandez commented Jun 27, 2017

tabatkins commented Jul 20, 2017 • edited by fantasai Loading

tabatkins commented Oct 17, 2017

javifernandez commented Oct 30, 2017

css-meeting-bot commented Nov 22, 2017

fantasai commented Nov 27, 2017

javifernandez commented Nov 30, 2017

mrego commented Nov 30, 2017

javifernandez commented Nov 30, 2017

tabatkins commented Dec 1, 2017

javifernandez commented Dec 1, 2017

mrego commented Nov 22, 2019

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

tabatkins commented Jul 20, 2017 •

edited by fantasai

Loading