On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com> wrote: > Current flexing algorithm choses to use either positive or negative flexibility > for all items, which helps to ensure it will finish with any combination of > flexibility and min/max sizes. This approach doesn't allow to optimize layout > by shrinking a large item that is far from both its min and its max sizes, and > growing a small item that is close to its preferred size. It may be possible to > get a better result by calculating penalties based on actual size change, > flexibility settings and where there calculated size is relative to > min/max/preferred sizes. > > Example to consider: > > <flexbox> > <div style="flex:1 1 auto">long description of something important that is about to happen</div> > <button style="flex:1 1 auto">I agree</button> > </flexbox> > > I don't know if this is will be really an issue. Small items can easily avoid the problem by not having a negative flexibility. I opened a bug for this anyway: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16322 I think the right answer for this is what you say - just don't provide a negative flexibility unless you're prepared to let that thing flex negatively. This is usually what you want anyway. I think providing a score-based algorithm more akin to systems like TeX's would be interesting, but should definitely be postponed to the next level. ~TJReceived on Tuesday, 13 March 2012 23:27:01 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:13 UTC