Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-flexbox] content size suggestion of image flex items (#6693)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `content size suggestion of large flex items`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: no substantive change to spec, but clarify the text to avoid confusion`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;fantasai> Topic: content size suggestion of large flex items<br>
&lt;fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6693<br>
&lt;dgrogan> https://jsfiddle.net/dgrogan/ug9rsf2a/<br>
&lt;fantasai> dgrogan: We recently rewrote some sizing code. Blink and Gecko agree, but counter to spec<br>
&lt;fantasai> dgrogan: I you have an image item that is stretched in the cross axis, do you reflect that stretched size through aspect ratio for min-content sizing<br>
&lt;fantasai> dgrogan: neither engine does so, but spec seems to say to do so<br>
&lt;fantasai> dgrogan: currently just arguing over what the spec says<br>
&lt;fantasai> dholbert: I think it makes sense. It also applies to grid<br>
&lt;fantasai> dholbert: whatever sizing ends up, make sure to be similar between flexbox and grid<br>
&lt;fantasai> dgrogan: Not familiar with grid, but iirc grid uses different minimum calculation<br>
&lt;fantasai> dgrogan: so outcome is maybe not the same<br>
&lt;fantasai> iank_: Talked about a very similar case in grid last month<br>
&lt;fantasai> iank_: Basically, there's a bunch of testcases in grid that test this, looking at one axis looking at other for min-size<br>
&lt;astearns> ack fantasai<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> Yes, cross sizing shoudl transfer to main axis. Unless there's a wrinkle I'm missing, I agree with a 50px height, maintaining the aspect ratio.<br>
&lt;florian> fantasai: from what I recall, the intention of the spec is that the size would transfer<br>
&lt;astearns> +1 to maintaining the aspect ratio<br>
&lt;dgrogan> q+<br>
&lt;astearns> ack dgrogan<br>
&lt;fantasai> fantasai: ...<br>
&lt;florian> fantasai: if you don't do that, you're going to end up distorting the aspec ratio<br>
&lt;fantasai> dgrogan: I think we agree that's the behavior we want, though engines don't have it today<br>
&lt;fantasai> dgrogan: This was a long confusing thread on interpreting the spec, would be good to make it clearer<br>
&lt;TYLin> q+<br>
&lt;fantasai> fantasai: I think that's something Tab and I would have to figure out offline :)<br>
&lt;florian> fantasai: tab and I will have to take time and do it offline<br>
&lt;astearns> ack TYLin<br>
&lt;fantasai> astearns: if anyone has any suggestions?<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> yup, don't want to commit to a particular way to write it until i have time to think about it ^_^<br>
&lt;fantasai> TYLin: Note that transfer size and ? are ???<br>
&lt;fantasai> TYLin: and ?? affects content-size suggestion<br>
&lt;fantasai> astearns: is the resolution for this issue no change to spec other than clarification?<br>
&lt;fantasai> dgrogan: I think that's accurate<br>
&lt;fantasai> iank_: Blink will make this change and update the testcases that are wrong<br>
&lt;fantasai> s/.../if you imagine a large image in a short row flex container, you wouldn't want its natural width to be the minimum, you'd want the width reduced in proportion to how the height is reduced by the cross size/<br>
&lt;TYLin> I think the transfer size suggestion and content size suggestion can be merged into one concept, and explicit saying that stretched cross-size should be used in content size suggestion.<br>
&lt;fantasai> RESOLVED: no substantive change to spec, but clarify the text to avoid confusion<br>
&lt;gtalbot> [crikets chirping sound]<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6693#issuecomment-942486995 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Wednesday, 13 October 2021 16:37:52 UTC