- From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
- Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 11:34:32 +0200
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
- CC: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
On 21/04/2012 00:24, fantasai wrote: > It's not clear to me from reading the algorithms what > width: auto; > flex: auto; > would result in, since the 'width' is neither definite nor one of the > values handled explicitly in the Flexbox algorithm. (Even if it was > clear, I'd suggest making a note of it in the 'flex' section so authors > would have some chance of noticing.) > > My suggestion is that it do something smart, like 'fit-content' with > an imposed min-size of 'min-content'. From Section 7, it is already clear what behaviour should result, right? The flexbox items are block-level boxes inside a flexbox container which establishes their containing block. Hence each non-replaced, non-table item's outer width is the width of that containing block, and so there will be one such item on each line in the case of a multi-line flexbox, or all such items will be on the same line but typically with rather a lot of overflow in the case of a single-line flexbox. However, the idea of having the combination of ?flex-preferred-size:auto and width:auto do something cool like you suggest is interesting, and possibly more useful than having ?flex-preferred-size:auto override 'width' to become width:auto, which was suggested in a recent thread. Possibly kind of confusing, though, not least because it then becomes *impossible* to just have normal width:auto behaviour. Also, I'm not sure what the consequences would be for calculating the dimensions of replaced elements. Cheers, Anton Prowse http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Monday, 23 April 2012 09:35:06 UTC