- From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 05:53:01 +0000
- To: Morten Stenshorne <mstensho@opera.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
± From: Morten Stenshorne [mailto:mstensho@opera.com] ± Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 12:29 AM ± ± If the line in non-wrappable flexboxes no longer follows the flexbox's cross size ± strictly, I think flex-line-pack should apply to non-wrappable flexboxes as well, ± since there may now be negative extra space to distribute (and also positive ± extra space if the note referred above is removed, to eliminate even more ± inconsistency). It may be a good idea -- but only if nowrap flexbox gets the same behavior as single-line wrap, namely the ability to stretch the line outside flexbox and align content into overflow. I would prefer to keep nowrap behavior as is and add a special case to line sizing in wrap case. ± Which brings me to the following question: Why isn't negative line stretching ± allowed? Negative item stretching is allowed (and it makes a lot of sense). ± Shouldn't there be a way to make the sole line in a flexbox fit the flexbox's ± cross size perfectly (by stretching or shrinking the line)? Isn't that use case ± #1? Negative cross-size stretching works for items, but only if their cross-size is 'auto'. For lines, negative shrinking would mean that content will overlap across lines and I can't think of any situation when it would be desirable... Alex
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2012 05:53:44 UTC