- From: Pauan via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2018 03:40:06 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> 1. Resolve flexbox % against inline axis (non-symmetric) and change grid to resolve all % in their own axis (symmetric) > 2. Align with blink and webkit - both flexbox and grid to be asymmetric (resolve margins and padding % in their inline axis) > 3. Align with gecko and edge - both flexbox and grid are symmetric (resolve all % in their own axis) For option 1, I assume you mean that for horizontal flexboxes the % will resolve based on the height, and for vertical flexboxes the % will resolve based on the width. I am okay with that. I am **not** okay with it *always* resolving based upon the width. I am okay with option 2, for the sake of consistency with `display: block` and also backwards compatibility. I am okay with option 3, I believe it is the most theoretically correct option (but not necessarily the most *practical* option). Essentially, I don't care that much which option is chosen, however, I *strongly* think `%w` and `%h` should be added: that solves every problem simultaneously: * Authors get consistent behavior across browsers * Authors can easily specify aspect ratio using `%w` and `%h` (no need for a new `aspect-ratio` property) * Authors gain more flexibility: they can use `%w` on both axes, `%h` on both axes, or a mixture of `%w` and `%h` That means authors can choose whether they prefer option 1, 2, or 3, rather than having a one-size-fits-all approach (which doesn't work) I've wanted `%w` and `%h` for many years, it would be a very useful addition in general. Of course adding `%w` and `%h` will require filing a new issue, but I think it is indirectly related to this issue, which is why I'm mentioning it here. -- GitHub Notification of comment by Pauan Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2085#issuecomment-355720352 using your GitHub account
Received on Saturday, 6 January 2018 03:40:32 UTC