- From: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
- Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 15:49:50 -0700
- To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
- CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
er, I think I meant "fill-available", not "fit-content" On 10/01/2012 03:22 PM, Daniel Holbert wrote: > On 10/01/2012 02:56 PM, Daniel Holbert wrote: >> SO -- does this make sense? And do we want to change the spec to "fix" >> this (reduce the wasted space) at all? > > To elaborate on this slightly: one way we could "fix" this in the spec > would be to add a special case to the section on determining flex base > sizes (9.2 step 3, last bullet-point). In particular -- if we have > "align-self:stretch", I think we might want to change that section to > treat "auto" cross-sizes as *fit-content* -- NOT max-content, which that > chunk currently calls for. > > With that change, we'd allow ourselves to use the flex container's full > width (300px) when we're sizing the multicol element in my previous > post's scenario. (rather than shrinkwrapping it.) So we'd end up with > a flex base size (height) of ~1em, instead of ~4em. > > I suspect Webkit might be using a special case like this to produce > their current behavior. > > CAVEAT: The "fit-content" spec-tweak that I suggest above *only* helps > if we already know what our ultimate stretched cross-size will be. In > particular, it only helps if our flex container is single-line and has a > definite cross size. > > ~Daniel >
Received on Monday, 1 October 2012 22:50:18 UTC