- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:29:45 +0100
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Le 12/01/11 19:17, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit : > Oh, come now, that's quite an exaggeration. The problem is very Not at all. If the trivial case "three boxes 1/2 1/4 1/4 all same height whatever the content" cannot be *intuitively* solved, and that's the very first case *all* designers need and will try (actually "tried" if you read Jeremie's emails), the module has a serious problem. > localized and can be fixed (I've been giving it a little thought, as > it was brought up to me privately earlier). > > The issue is just that the current draft resolves the preferred width > for elements with ''width: auto'' in horizontal flexboxes as > 'max-content' (that is, the width of the element's contents if you > don't take any optional linebreaking opportunities). Yes. > I'm not certain what the correct solution is, nor am I certain that > there even *is* a correct solution. Your concrete use-case would help > here, Daniel. In the example you give, what do you imagine the > preferred width should be? Would it be better to have 'auto' width > resolve as 'min-content' (take *all* optional linebreaks)? > > If you want elements to absorb space based *purely* on their flex, the > solution is to set width:0. The 'width' property sets the preferred > width, which is used as the base atop which free space is assigned. Right. But "width: 0" is far from intuitive and readable and I think the rule should be on the box, not its contents... I just want something that users (read web authors) will understand immediately when they read the corresponding css rules. </Daniel>
Received on Wednesday, 12 January 2011 20:30:17 UTC