- From: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:31:09 -0700
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Three notes on the new "Resolving Flexible Lengths" text: ISSUE #1: # The total violation is the sum of the differences between each # violating element's original size and its adjusted size. The word "original" is ambiguous there -- it could be taken to mean either "the size before we flexed it" or "the size after we flexed it". I think we want it to mean the latter, so I suggest s/original/flexed/ and perhaps also s/adjusted/clamped/. ISSUE #2: In that same chunk of text, I think "the difference" is backwards from what we want it to be, and this makes the min/max behavior incorrect at the moment. Right now, I read the above text to say: Total Violation = Sum(OriginalFlexedSize - ClampedSize) So if "max-width" is the only constraint in play, then the Total Violation will be positive. (since ClampedSize is less than FlexedSize) But the "Positive" clause says "Freeze all the items with _min_ violations" (of which there are none in this case), so we won't freeze anything, and we'll loop forever. I think we want to reverse the order of subtraction, like so: Total Violation = Sum(ClampedSize - FlexedSize) (which is what it was in the previous spec-version) so that a max-width clamping will produce a _negative_ Total Violation, which will make us freeze items with max violations and produce sane behavior. ISSUE #3: # 5. [...] If the total violation is: # Zero # If the free space is also zero[...] This might be clearer with s/free space is/free space was/, since "the free space" (from Step 2) has already been distributed at this point, which makes talking about it in the present tense a little confusing. Thanks, ~Daniel
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 18:31:38 UTC