- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 14:01:56 -0800
- To: "Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu" <kanghaol@oupeng.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kanghaol@oupeng.com> wrote: > (12/11/01 21:27), Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> So, based on feedback in this thread, here's my modified suggestion: >> >> 1. In step 3, add a step that, if the available cross size is >> definite, and an item has both an intrinsic aspect ratio and >> 'align-self:stretch', goes ahead and sets the hypothetical cross size >> of the item to the available cross size, and the hypothetical main >> size according to its aspect ratio. > > It's a bit difficult to make further comments on this without explicit > wording. For example, I am not sure this substep gets triggered or not if: > > 1. The flex container is a multi-line one. > 2. When the item has a definite cross size, which is suppose to make > 'align-self: stretch' not effective. > 3. When the item has a definite flex basis. The text should be clear now. (1) does not trigger it (we require single-line), (2) does not trigger it (we require both dimensions to be auto), and neither does (3) (same reason). > But in any case, setting the hypothetical cross size doesn't seem to be > necessary. Yes. The text I have now invokes the cross size, but only in the context of defining the hypothetical main size. We don't actually set a hypothetical cross size. >> 2. Modify step 9 (handling "stretch" alignment) to have an explicit >> statement about handling aspect-ratio items, to clarify that it >> changes the cross-size *while ignoring the aspect ratio*, so the main >> size doesn't change. > > I don't know if it's a good idea or not to also mention that "clamped > according to the item's min and max cross size properties" doesn't > trigger the min/max violation table in CSS 2.1 10.4. As far as we can tell, this change wasn't needed anyway. We just have a note that the main size has already been set and thus won't be changed by us adjusting the cross size. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 3 December 2012 22:02:47 UTC