https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/fit-content The description here is fine for using fit-content() as a track-size. However, fit-content() is now also specified as a value for 'width' / 'height' etc so I think this page should be moved to something more Grid specific, e.g. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Grid/fit-content It might be good to add some text in the intro to disambiguate it from this: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-sizing/#size-keywords Alternatively, you could use this page to describe fit-content() in generic terms and mention that it can be used for width/height etc as well as a track-size. But please make sure to point out that we haven't implemented fit-content() for width/height etc yet. That's bug 1312588.

Assigned to :sebo per bug 1281320 comment 12

Thanks for filing this, Mats! I've adjusted the page[1] to match both, the grid properties and the width and height related properties, as CSS properties are generally not placed under a spec. specific URL. Mats, Jean-Yves, can you please do a quick review of the changes? Sebastian [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/fit-content$revision/1145732

In the opening statement, please change fit-content() to fit-content(argument), otherwise it's a bit mysterious where that comes from in the later text. (the added "argument" should probably be in italics like the other ones) This is a bit vague: "The function can be used for different grid properties". I would change that to: "The function can be used as a track size in CSS Grid properties" Typo: in "It can also be used for width..." paragraph, there are two spaces in "the maximum" In "Specifications": "Initial definition" should probably say "Defines the function when used as a track size" In "Browser compatibility", please change "Basic support" to "Supported as a track size in CSS Grid properties" or some such. Also, "Specifications" / "Browser compatibility" should probably list the two types of use in the same order. And in general, perhaps it's better to start with the 'width' usage since that applies generally to all boxes, whereas track sizes are specific to Grid.

(In reply to Mats Palmgren (:mats) from comment #3) > In the opening statement, please change fit-content() to > fit-content(argument), > otherwise it's a bit mysterious where that comes from in the later text. > (the added "argument" should probably be in italics like the other ones) All CSS function descriptions skip the arguments in the summary. See e.g. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/linear-gradient. The syntax definition and examples clarify the usage. The main reason is probably to keep the summary short and easy to read (especially for functions with more complex syntaxes). So I've kept it as is for consistency. Jean-Yves, I'd like to hear your opinion on this, though. > This is a bit vague: "The function can be used for different grid > properties". > I would change that to: "The function can be used as a track size in CSS > Grid properties" Fixed. > Typo: in "It can also be used for width..." paragraph, there are two spaces > in "the maximum" Fixed. > In "Specifications": "Initial definition" should probably say "Defines the > function when used as a track size" I agree, it makes it clearer, so I've changed it. It's just that the first listed spec. normally always says "Initial definition". Jean-Yves, can you please confirm that it's ok to have the sentence there instead of "Initial definition"? > In "Browser compatibility", please change "Basic support" to "Supported as a > track size in CSS Grid properties" or some such. "Basic support" as the first entry of the compatibility table is an even stronger unwritten rule than the above (actually it is part of a writing style guide example[1]). In consistence to the above, I've changed it, anyway. Though like above I'd like Jean-Yves to confirm whether that's ok. > Also, "Specifications" / "Browser compatibility" should probably list the two > types of use in the same order. And in general, perhaps it's better to start > with the 'width' usage since that applies generally to all boxes, whereas > track sizes are specific to Grid. Agree, it's consistent with the above. Sebastian [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/MDN/Contribute/Structures/Compatibility_tables#Browser_compatibility

I've updated the compatibility now. Jean-Yves, I'm still waiting for your feedback regarding comment 4. Sebastian

Opened these topics up for broader discussion at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.mdc/r3GMufqMHV4. Closing this bug now, as Mats' comments got fixed. Sebastian