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

RE: [css3-flexbox] ussue 2 - fill-available vs. fit-content

From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 19:01:08 +0000
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2C86A15F63CD734EB1D846A0BA4E0FC81A3F085C@CH1PRD0310MB381.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
 From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net] 
 Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 11:53 AM
 On 05/07/2012 09:32 PM, Alex Mogilevsky wrote:
 > Issue 2 [1] says
 > "Are flexboxes fill-available or fit-content by default? Or are 
 > really shrink-wrap, such that we need to adjust the main size 
 here, now that we know the length of the longest line"
 > This shouldn't be an issue. It is up to parent layout to decide if 
 > they want shrink-wrap, based on parent layout and display-outside.
 No, Flexbox needs to specify for itself. Tables and blocks both 
 participate in block-level layout, yet given 'auto' width, one is 
 fit-content and the other fill-available. We can say "use these 
 rules" and point at a set of rules, but we need to point at a set of 
 rules and not just let people guess which ones we meant.

I get this now. It has to be fill-available. Otherwise we will shrink-wrap to content before applying flexibility. Any items with "flex:N" will remain zero size (or min size). We wouldn't want that, would we?
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2012 19:04:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:58 UTC