- From: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 12:23:15 -0700
- To: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
- Cc: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CANMdWTvTcmKWzpSQZ1FrkXHmhYH3MCcmxXhYuMtvwh=G8GH=8Q@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>wrote: > On 04/17/2012 11:28 PM, Alex Mogilevsky wrote: > > sure, there must be at least one item in each line. > > > > How does this sound? > > > > 2.Collect as many consecutive flexbox items as possible, starting > from > > the first item, <INS> then add items </INS> while keeping the sum > of > > their margin-box main size smaller than the flexbox's available > space. > > If a flexbox item is sized with a flexible length, then for the > purpose > > of this step, clamp its size between its minimum and maximum main > > sizes. The items so collected form a single flexbox line. > This sounds like it actually affects the size of the flex item later in the algorithm, which I think is not what you intended? I find Daniel's wording below less ambiguous. > This is better, yeah -- though perhaps the wording could be made > slightly clearer. In particular, the "while keeping their margin-box > main size smaller than the flexbox's available space" chunk still sounds > a bit confusing / impossible to satisfy in the large-first-item case. > (I know the intention is for it not to apply in that case, but that's > not immediately obvious.) > > Perhaps that first sentence could be replaced with something like this: > (more verbose but perhaps more clear?) > > 2. Create an empty collection of flexbox items. Insert the first > available item. If this item's margin-box main-size isn't already > larger than the flexbox's available space, then insert as many > consecutive flexbox items as possible, keeping the sum of their > margin-box main sizes less than the flexbox's available space. > > I'd be happy with your suggested text, too, though. (or anything else > that conveys the same idea) > > Thanks! > ~Daniel > >
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2012 19:24:06 UTC