- From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kanghaol@oupeng.com>
- Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:51:39 +0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
(12/11/01 21:27), Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > So, based on feedback in this thread, here's my modified suggestion: > > 1. In step 3, add a step that, if the available cross size is > definite, and an item has both an intrinsic aspect ratio and > 'align-self:stretch', goes ahead and sets the hypothetical cross size > of the item to the available cross size, and the hypothetical main > size according to its aspect ratio. It's a bit difficult to make further comments on this without explicit wording. For example, I am not sure this substep gets triggered or not if: 1. The flex container is a multi-line one. 2. When the item has a definite cross size, which is suppose to make 'align-self: stretch' not effective. 3. When the item has a definite flex basis. But in any case, setting the hypothetical cross size doesn't seem to be necessary. > 2. Modify step 9 (handling "stretch" alignment) to have an explicit > statement about handling aspect-ratio items, to clarify that it > changes the cross-size *while ignoring the aspect ratio*, so the main > size doesn't change. I don't know if it's a good idea or not to also mention that "clamped according to the item's min and max cross size properties" doesn't trigger the min/max violation table in CSS 2.1 10.4. Cheers, Kenny -- Web Specialist, Oupeng Browser, Beijing Try Oupeng: http://www.oupeng.com/
Received on Friday, 2 November 2012 06:59:56 UTC