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

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

From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 02:09:15 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2C86A15F63CD734EB1D846A0BA4E0FC823CC165E@CH1PRD0310MB381.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
> From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 6:15 PM
> 
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
> > <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.

With all due respect, careful deliberate writing does not guarantee correctness. You have shown previously that you can improve things that you yourself had carefully and deliberately designed earlier...

> 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
> accidental.

Make sure that when you test your algorithm for intended behavior with orthogonal-writing-mode child, you also consider orthogonal-axis multiline flexbox and a parallel-writing-mode child that has content in orthogonal writing mode.

Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2012 02:11:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:55 GMT