- From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 22:25:55 +0000
- To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
± Current ED says in 9.2-3 "Determine the hypothetical main size of each item": ± ± "...unless the item's writing mode is perpendicular to the flexbox's writing mode ± (in which case the rules for a box in an orthogonal flow [CSS3-WRITING-MODES] are in ± effect)..." ± ± It looks like writing modes spec gives proper guidance for dealing with defined and ± underdefined inputs. However whatever issues are there with items in orthogonal ± writing modes, same issues apply to a flexbox with orthogonal flow direction. ± ± For example, if a vertical multiline flexbox is a child of horizontal single-line ± flexbox, and the horizontal flexbox has specified height, the vertical flexbox ± should be given that height as available space at this step. The output content max- ± width will account for line wrapping, just like what we want from vertical text. ± ± I am not sure what is the best text for this step in the algorithm, but I would ± expect that it is not strictly triggered by writing modes. ± ± Actually I think at the hypothetical main size step, all items should just have ± infinite available space on main axis and actual available size on cross axis ± (defined or not), and it will do the right thing in parallel and orthogonal flows. ± Working on a proof. One more note on this: flex item can *contain* boxes with orthogonal flow and have same sizing characteristics as orthogonal flow (main size depends on cross size) without itself being orthogonal.
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 22:27:48 UTC