- From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
- Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 08:41:59 +0200
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
From Minutes and Resolutions Hamburg F2F 2012-05-10 Part I: Flexbox http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012May/0520.html > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012May/0007.html > Tab: previously, there was a difference in cross-sizing for single-line > and multi-line > Tab draws a single line flexbox > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2012May/0023.html > Tab: if you had one item that was extra big inside of it > Tab: question is, the flexbox line, which we use for alignment, how > big should it be? > Tab: should it be the height of the big item, or height of the flexbox? > Tab: Old flexbox set it to size of the flexbox in single-line mode, > but to the height of the tall box in multiline mode > Tab: top/bottom aligned bits would align within the flexbox element, > and stretch items would stretch to fit it > Tab: In second case (multiline) the flexbox line would stretch to > height of big item, and items would align to bottom/top of that/ > stretch to height of that > Tab: [even in case of having a single line] > RESOLVED: adopt proposal C in > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012May/0299.html Proposal C looks like a modification to the algorithm; please can we also have the effect of that modification described in the main body of the spec somewhere! Cheers, Anton Prowse http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2012 06:42:33 UTC