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

Re: [css3-flexbox] better algorithm for hypothetical main size

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 18:15:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDA=htDwXEdij90icryu1dhuv_hTB+drEM5MSrtsO3DuoQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com> wrote:
> (separating from cross-size thread)
> Hypothetical main size determination in flex layout algorithm [1] has
> unnecessary assymetry wrt flex items parallel vs. orthogonal to main axis. The
> distinction is not useful, because (1) items in parallel writing mode can have
> orthogonal content and (2) there are other reasons for item layout to behave
> similar to orthogonal writing mode, e.g. a multiline flexbox with orthogonal
> main axis.
> What matters is dependency of content max-size an min-size on cross size of
> flex container.
> The two bullet items on laying out items in available space should be replaced
> with following:
> <algorithm>
> Otherwise, lay out the item using available space with following dimensions:
> * On main axis:
>    - if flex-basis is auto: infinite
>    - if flex-basis 'fit-available' or 'fit-content':
>      flex-container's main size, constrained by its
>      min and max size.
> * On cross axis:  flex container's cross size, constrained
>  by its min and max size.
> The flex base size is the item's resulting measure.
> </algorithm>
> In Bugzilla: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17475

Fantasai and I wrote that section very carefully and deliberately, and
checked it against 8 of the 16 possible combinations of orientations.

I have to reload all of that into my head to see if there's actually a
problem here, but I can definitely state that the asymmetry is not

Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2012 01:16:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:00 UTC