- From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 19:01:08 +0000
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
± From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net] ± Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 11:53 AM ± ± On 05/07/2012 09:32 PM, Alex Mogilevsky wrote: ± > Issue 2 [1] says ± > ± > "Are flexboxes fill-available or fit-content by default? Or are ± they ± > really shrink-wrap, such that we need to adjust the main size ± here, now that we know the length of the longest line" ± > ± > This shouldn't be an issue. It is up to parent layout to decide if ± > they want shrink-wrap, based on parent layout and display-outside. ± ± No, Flexbox needs to specify for itself. Tables and blocks both ± participate in block-level layout, yet given 'auto' width, one is ± fit-content and the other fill-available. We can say "use these ± rules" and point at a set of rules, but we need to point at a set of ± rules and not just let people guess which ones we meant. I get this now. It has to be fill-available. Otherwise we will shrink-wrap to content before applying flexibility. Any items with "flex:N" will remain zero size (or min size). We wouldn't want that, would we?
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2012 19:04:03 UTC