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

Re: [css3-flexbox] Bad result in flex algorithm when combining stretch, and elements with an aspect ratio

From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kanghaol@oupeng.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:51:39 +0800
Message-ID: <50936D7B.5070002@oupeng.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
(12/11/01 21:27), Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> So, based on feedback in this thread, here's my modified suggestion:
> 
> 1. In step 3, add a step that, if the available cross size is
> definite, and an item has both an intrinsic aspect ratio and
> 'align-self:stretch', goes ahead and sets the hypothetical cross size
> of the item to the available cross size, and the hypothetical main
> size according to its aspect ratio.

It's a bit difficult to make further comments on this without explicit
wording. For example, I am not sure this substep gets triggered or not if:

  1. The flex container is a multi-line one.
  2. When the item has a definite cross size, which is suppose to make
     'align-self: stretch' not effective.
  3. When the item has a definite flex basis.

But in any case, setting the hypothetical cross size doesn't seem to be
necessary.

> 2. Modify step 9 (handling "stretch" alignment) to have an explicit
> statement about handling aspect-ratio items, to clarify that it
> changes the cross-size *while ignoring the aspect ratio*, so the main
> size doesn't change.

I don't know if it's a good idea or not to also mention that "clamped
according to the item's min and max cross size properties" doesn't
trigger the min/max violation table in CSS 2.1 10.4.



Cheers,
Kenny
-- 
Web Specialist, Oupeng Browser, Beijing
Try Oupeng: http://www.oupeng.com/
Received on Friday, 2 November 2012 06:59:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:02 GMT