W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2012

Re: [css3-flexbox] Circular dependency between height of "flex-align:stretch" children & height of flexbox

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:51:04 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDKbJSPo=cwkvk7h8R7mNLRORHohPY_TEo-xiTFDS-UkQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Hi www-style,
> I just noticed one circular dependency in the spec that could stand some
> clarification.
> So -- the definition for 'flex-align: stretch' [1] says that it makes
> flexbox items' cross sizes resolve to their line's cross size.
> Meanwhile, in the Flexbox Layout Alg section about computing a line's
> cross size, we use its items' cross sizes as inputs. [2]
> So: when we're computing a line's cross size, what should we be using as
> the cross sizes for its auto-sized items with flex-align:stretch?  I see
> two possibilities:
>  (a) 0 (since it's not resolved yet)
>  (b) the "normal" auto size (disregarding the effects of "stretch")
> I'd advocate (b), because otherwise, flexboxes whose children are all
> auto-sized and have flex-align:stretch (the defaults) would have a cross
> size of 0 & not render anything, which is pretty bad default behavior.
> Could we clarify this in the spec?  I think the chunk that most needs to
> address this is [2]. (where it talks about using the items' cross sizes
> as inputs)

Yup, it should be (b).

fantasai and I are right now rewriting the layout algorithm to ground
it in extreme specificity, and we're finding that all the layout
algorithms are giant piles of hands, blindly waving.

Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2012 00:51:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 February 2015 12:35:08 UTC