- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 13:30:02 -0400
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 08/21/2015 05:32 PM, Christian Biesinger wrote:
> That seems largely reasonable to me, though I haven't worked through
> all the details.
>
> General thought: Since we generally use flex-basis instead of width
> (/height) in Flexbox, we should do that also for the intrinsic sizing
> computation. That is, "flex-direction: row; flex-basis: 50px; width:
> auto;" should produce the same intrinsic main size as "flex-direction:
> row; width: 50px;".
The WG discussed this last week and concluded that we shouldn't
consider the flex-basis since that's closest to what implementations
do now. Testcase:
http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?%3C!DOCTYPE%20html%3E%0A%3Cstyle%3E%0A%20%20div%20{%20display%3A%20flex%3B%20border%3A%20solid%20gray%3B%20float%3A%20left%3B%20}%0A%20%20div%20%3E%20p%20{%20flex%3A%201%3B%20margin%3A%200%3B%20border%3A%20solid%20silver%3B%20margin%3A%204px%3B%20flex-basis%3A%201000px%3B%20}%0A%3C%2Fstyle%3E%0A%3Cdiv%3E%0A%20%20%3Cp%3EA%20A%0A%20%20%3Cp%3EA%20A%0A%3C%2Fdiv%3E
> Also, I just added a counter to Chrome 46 to see how many websites
> will be affected by this intrinsic size change, at least for logical
> widths. Hopefully the results will be promising.
Cool. :) Can you summarize the case you're counting (or post a link
to the code)?
~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 2 September 2015 17:30:34 UTC