- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 18:15:12 -0700
- To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com> wrote: > (separating from cross-size thread) > > Hypothetical main size determination in flex layout algorithm [1] has > unnecessary assymetry wrt flex items parallel vs. orthogonal to main axis. The > distinction is not useful, because (1) items in parallel writing mode can have > orthogonal content and (2) there are other reasons for item layout to behave > similar to orthogonal writing mode, e.g. a multiline flexbox with orthogonal > main axis. > > What matters is dependency of content max-size an min-size on cross size of > flex container. > > The two bullet items on laying out items in available space should be replaced > with following: > > <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 Fantasai and I wrote that section very carefully and deliberately, and checked it against 8 of the 16 possible combinations of orientations. I have to reload all of that into my head to see if there's actually a problem here, but I can definitely state that the asymmetry is not accidental. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2012 01:16:02 UTC