- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 15:33:43 -0700
- To: Tony Chang <tony@chromium.org>
- Cc: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Tony Chang <tony@chromium.org> wrote: > Why does computing the min-height for a column flexbox require a full > layout? In the case of column flexboxes, I don't think we have to do any > extra work because we can't end up smaller than the min-content (the height > is already the min). The min-content height of a block is the height of the content after doing layout. It's not like min-content width, where you can do a much less expensive poll of your contents and take the max. > That said, flex-basis: auto is about twice as slow as flex-basis: 0 (or any > other fixed value). This is because before you can do the flex algorithm, > you need to compute the the basis (layout the child), then after you've run > the flex algorithm, you have to do a second layout at the computed width. > > I would prefer that the initial value of flex-basis be 0. As Tab mentioned > up thread, this won't cause overflow anymore than flex-basis: auto. If dealing with the min-content restriction is indeed much cheaper than a full layout in WebKit (I already know that it's cheaper in FF), then yeah, I don't see any particular reason to default to 'auto' over '0'. They're equally safe, and neither seems to be obviously more desirable as a default layout strategy. Favoring the faster layout system here seems like a win. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2012 22:34:34 UTC