Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-flexbox][css-grid] Choose a single option for resolving padding and margin percent values of grid/flex items

> 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 using your GitHub account

Received on Saturday, 6 January 2018 03:40:32 UTC