- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 16:27:24 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `Definiteness of flex items' main size depend on flex-basis's definiteness`, and agreed to the following resolutions: * `RESOLVED: Allow % to resolve, re-open issue if dholbert or others want to rediscuss.` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <dael> Topic: Definiteness of flex items' main size depend on flex-basis's definiteness<br> <dael> github topic: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1679<br> <dael> Bert: I think gregwhitworth wanted to look at code he had to compare.<br> <dael> gregwhitworth: Is anybody from FF on?<br> <dael> dbaron: I don't know if I'll be helpful.<br> <dael> gregwhitworth: I put my information in the notes. I sat with our dev. We could out the same thing as dholbert. We haven't impl this aspect. I pushed him tos ee if this is right approach. Dholbert seemed to say he thought it was the right approach.<br> <dael> gregwhitworth: WE do because everything is auto we do layout and then a second pass to resolve %. That's what authors also expect. I'm wondering if we should remove the constraing on #2 of 1.8. If you set definte flex basis and fixed height it does the extra work. I see a lot of authors doing this though it's not what they're expecting.<br> <dael> fantasai: Bigger argument is we have introp on 2 impl and the authors expect that behavior. Spec says something else so we should change spec.<br> <dael> gregwhitworth: And what dholbert posted to the list, we originally said hey performance. It's odd for authors to know that to set flex-basis to 0 is what you need to do for chorome to look like edge and ff.<br> <fremy> fwiw I discussed this with gregwhitworth yesterday, and I totally +1 his request to remove the constraints on #2<br> <dael> gregwhitworth: Let's just removet he constraints of #2 under 9.8<br> <dael> fantasai: Reasonable to me.<br> <dael> Bert: Me too, but I'm not expert. Other opinions?<br> <dael> dbaron: I'm not sure how well performance bugs get tied back to this. I'm not sure if we heard there were performance bugs.<br> <dbaron> s/heard/would have heard/<br> <dbaron> s/there/if there/<br> <dael> gregwhitworth: That's a valid arguments. I feel like we're going to argue a theory. Now that we have grid we'll be able to have less nested flexes is my guess so I'm not as worried about the circular problem.<br> <dael> fantasai: IN grid % always resolved b/c grid sizing creates sizes for the tracks. Conseptually grid algo resolves the eq. code the way FF and Edge do flex right now.<br> <dael> Bert: I'm hearing, fantasai , that there are impl that do and some that don't do the layout based sizing?<br> <dael> gregwhitworth: Chrome and I believe I saw webkit and blink would have to change. As we stated the people on the thread aren't on the call.<br> <gsnedders> FF and Edge agree, Chrome and Safari agree (but are one impl now again)<br> <dael> Bert: Are we confident enough to decide? Do we need more input?<br> <gsnedders> WebKit's implementation of flex was literally copied over from Blink a few months ago<br> <dael> fantasai: Christian is away for the next couple months. We can ask dholbert that we want this resolution and ask for approval. From dholbert and whomever people want to tag.<br> <dael> Bert: Sounds like a good way forward. If we document it in the issue is that enough? Do we need to contact personally?<br> <dael> gregwhitworth: I say we just resolve since we discussed it. We can rediscuss if they want to get on a call<br> <dael> Bert: Okay.<br> <dael> Bert: wording for proposed resolution:<br> <dael> gregwhitworth: It's what I said in #2. Basically re-wirte #2 of section 9.8 to % would resolve.<br> <dael> fantasai: Allow % to resolve, re-open issue if dholbert or others want to rediscuss.<br> <dael> Bert: Okay, that's the proposal. Objections?<br> <gregwhitworth> s/it's what I said in #2/it's what I said in the issue<br> <dael> RESOLVED: Allow % to resolve, re-open issue if dholbert or others want to rediscuss.<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1679#issuecomment-324389558 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 23 August 2017 16:27:25 UTC