W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2013

Re: [css3-flexbox] alignment and overflow:scroll

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 08:27:08 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCsqYrhEYjQO=c0wad_B3FtDu61f+of_Vm6JEAWu-pD7A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tony Chang <tony@chromium.org>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Tony Chang <tony@chromium.org> wrote:
> I'm confused about the order in which we apply alignment and overflow on the
> flexbox.  Here's an example with stretching:
> <div style="display: flexbox; overflow: scroll; height: 100px;">
>   <img intrinsic-height=200px>
> </div>
> Should the image resize to a height 100px with no scrollbar on the flexbox
> or should the image stay at 200px and the flexbox get a scrollbar?

Following the algorithm, we determine in step 2 that the available
vertical space is 100px.  In step 3, we use the last bullet point, and
lay the element out normally, as if it were in block flow, to
determine its size.  Replaced elements do not naturally shrink to fit
into the space, so its hypothetical height is 200px.

Then, down in step 14, we deal with align-self.  This specifies that
the element must be adjusted to the cross-size of the flexbox, so its
height gets shrunk to 100px.  No scrollbar is generated.

In general, scrollbars will only be generated if a min-height is
involved (which prevents 'stretch' from shrinking it to the height of
the flexbox), or alignments other than 'stretch' are used.

> Here's a similar example:
> <div style="display: flexbox; overflow: scroll; height: 100px;">
>   <img intrinsic-height=200px style="item-align: flex-end">
> </div>

You meant "align-self: flex-end", right?  I'll proceed as if that was the case.

> Where is the cross-end?  Is it the bottom of the flexbox (100px), causing
> the flexbox to overflow out the top, or should the scrollable area extend to
> 200px tall?

Here, we do the same things we did previously, except when we come to
step 14.  Now, because the alignment is 'flex-end', it doesn't have
its height adjusted, and just aligns its cross-end edge with that of
the flexbox. So, yes, it then overflows out the top.  However, because
scrolling containers don't show their overflow, and you can't scroll
past the top of an element, the overflowing part is simply clipped and
is completely inaccessible.  (If we ever allowed scrollable areas to
scroll into negative positions, you could get to it.)

> Should absolutely positioned flex items also increase the size of the
> scrollable area and change the position of cross-end?  This is further
> confused in the wrap-reverse case where the cross-start is the bottom of the
> flexbox (we need to resolve absolute position to determine the scrollable
> area size, but absolutely positioned items will move during wrap-reverse
> after we've computed the scrollable area size).

This brings up an interesting question - if the flexbox is scrollable,
should we take that into account when determining the available space,
making those dimensions infinite?  If we did, then English text in a
row flexbox would trigger orthogonal flow stuff, unless we figured out
some way to reword the the third bullet point in step 3 to avoid this.

I'm inclined to say "no", and leave the available space calculations
alone (except that scrollbars subtract from them, which does need to
be edited in).  That keeps things simple and predictable, and avoids
any issues like what you've brought up.

Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2013 15:28:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:09 UTC