- From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 23:41:17 +0000
- To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
± From: Alex Mogilevsky [mailto:alexmog@microsoft.com] ± Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 3:11 PM ± ± <algorithm> ± Otherwise, lay out the item using available space with following dimensions: ± ± * On main axis: ± - if flex-basis is auto: infinite ± - if flex-basis 'fit-available' or 'fit-content': ± flex-container's main size, constrained by its ± min and max size. ± ± * On cross axis: flex container's cross size, constrained ± by its min and max size. ± ± The flex base size is the item's resulting measure. ± </algorithm> ± ± In Bugzilla: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17475 Note that this approach assumes that when hypothetical cross size is determined later, it is also done within available space of flex container's cross size, *regardless of alignment*. The spec currently doesn't say so and I am not sure what the preferred behavior is. What behavior do we prefer for non-stretch alignment now? A: fit-content in flex container cross-size: +++++++++++++++ |-------------| |my alignment | |is stretch | |-------------| |-------------| |my alignment | |is start | |-------------| | | +++++++++++++++ B: max-content +++++++++++++++ |-------------| |my alignment | |is stretch | |-------------| |------------------------- |my alignment is start | |------------------------- | | +++++++++++++++ I prefer A, I think it is more consistent with block layout, and it is more useful. But after all the changes I am not sure what the spec expects here. Alex
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2012 23:42:38 UTC