W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2012

Re: [css3-flexbox] hypothetical size with orhogonal writing modes

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 15:37:18 -0700
Message-ID: <4FAAF19E.9070500@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 05/08/2012 05:40 PM, Alex Mogilevsky wrote:
> 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.

Tab and I think this is already handled by the "available size determination"
step of the algorithm. (Granted, the definition of available size is a bit
underdefined right now outside of flexbox and probably needs some clarification
in WM Appendix D.)

> 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.

This is identical to what's there already except in the case of ''fill-available''
and ''fit-content'' sizing, in which case you do need the available size to not
be infinite in the main axis if it's in fact defined. So we think the spec is
currently correct.

Are we missing anything?

Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 22:37:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:16 UTC