- From: Morten Stenshorne <mstensho@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:53:44 +0200
- To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com> writes: > I think you are right, it should say > > Positive: Freeze items with min violations, and return to step 2. > Negative: Freeze items with max violations, and return to step 2. > > The idea is that if all of the min/max adjustment add more space > (negative total change in item size), we freeze the items that do add > space (max vaiolations) and vice versa. And if the next iteration for some reason causes other items to be violated, the previously violated items aren't unfrozen for the third iteration - right? I'm a bit curious about the following in step 4: 4.1 If the free space is positive, but step 1 chose negative flexibility, do nothing 4.2 If the free space is negative, but step 1 chose positive flexibility, do nothing Is this necessary? And also: how can this situation occur at all? If we never unfreeze items, the steps above seem unnecessary. There will be no infinite loops. -- ---- Morten Stenshorne, developer, Opera Software ASA ---- ---- Office: +47 23693206 ---- Cellular: +47 93440112 ---- ------------------ http://www.opera.com/ -----------------
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2012 07:54:31 UTC