- From: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
- Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 17:05:20 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
On 10/02/2012 04:15 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > After thinking about this a bit more, I actually think this is > reasonable. [...] > It does mean that you'll have to explicitly set a multicol flex item > to be "width: fill-available;" if you want the "better" behavior where > it fills out the correct number of columns, To be clear -- even if you don't do that, the multicol element *should* fill out the correct number of columns, because we have to respect "stretch" and stretch it horizontally. It'll just be abnormally tall and have some wasted vertical space. See the ASCII diagram in my first post on this thread, which I think has the correct rendering: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Oct/0017.html Is that consistent with your understanding? Or do you think the rendering should be different? > Yeah, granted. In any case, it looks like Chrome's behavior is not > justifiable - there's nothing in the flexbox layout algorithm that > allows you to run an additional layout in the "stretch" case. Cool -- I filed https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98213 on this. Thanks! ~Daniel
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2012 00:05:48 UTC