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

Re: [css3-flexbox] Computing the height of an auto-sized multicol element in a flex container

From: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 18:35:35 -0700
Message-ID: <506A44E7.2010204@mozilla.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
On 10/01/2012 05:32 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> I don't think you should interpet that "narrowest measure" quite that
> literally for multicol elements.  Your interpretation *always* forces
> multicol elements into a single column when you set "width:
> max-content", which I think is very undesirable.

Well, that undesirable thing is exactly what browsers do right now...

Opera, Firefox, and Chrome all currently agree that a multicol element
should only have a single column, when wrapped in a either a floated div
or an inline-block (which I think are both ways of getting the
max-content width):
https://people.mozilla.com/~dholbert/tests/flexbox/multicol-sizing-1.html

(I can't test IE at the moment, as I'm on Ubuntu.)

Maybe this is just because multicol is still maturing, though, and this
behavior will eventually need to change in all rendering engines?

> We very specifically went with max-content over fill-available.  I
> don't like it nearly as much, but it was intentional.

I think this choice (max-content sizing for flex items) was wise for the
general case.  But I'm wondering whether it might be wise to also add a
special-case just for "align-self:stretch".  (Maybe you're saying that
special-case was considered and rejected -- if so, ok.)

I'm not convinced that I like the prospect of this special case, but
given the apparent consensus among rendering engines about the
max-content size of multicol elements, I think it could provide more
intuitive behavior for multicol-in-a-flex-container.  I also don't think
it'd affect many other types of flex items (but I haven't convinced
myself of that yet).

In any case: I mostly just want this to be clearly-defined and
interoperable. :)

~Daniel
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2012 01:36:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:01 GMT