On 02/16/2012 07:40 AM, Alex Mogilevsky wrote: > > ± (a) Here, are we still laying out each child *as if it were the only > ± child* (as a previous version of the ED stated about this part)? > > No, it means lay out in infinite space to find what size the item would be if it didn't have constraints of any kind. > > ± (b) "using the shrink-to-fit algorithm" -- could this link to somewhere > ± where that algorithm is definitively defined? > > "shrink-to-fit" should be defined here more specifically. It is the same as sizing a float or positioned element in CSS2.1 (http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#float-width), but without the last step of min(max(preferred minimum width, available width), preferred width). > > Any suggestions for normative text to put here? http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-writing-modes/#intrinsic-sizing You're looking for the "max-content" size here. ~fantasaiReceived on Tuesday, 21 February 2012 15:08:22 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:11 UTC