- From: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
- Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 15:52:58 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
On 10/01/2012 03:31 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > So, if I'm thinking about this correctly, the right behavior (assuming > we define width:max-content on multicols in a reasonable way) is > neither Firefox nor Webkit's behavior. Webkit's behavior in > "align-self:stretch" is correct, but its "align-self: flex-end" > behavior is wrong - it should be the width of four columns, not one. So we split into as many columns as we possibly can? Suppose we had 100 lines of text (separated by <br>, say) in a floated auto-sized element with "column-width" set. Should we split it into 100 columns? I don't think that makes sense. > I don't think making all of them be 1 column wide and 4 lines tall is > justifiable - I think it implies a definition of "width: max-content;" > on multicol elements that is undesirable. I actually think that's a reasonable definition of "width: max-content" for multicol elements, and it matches the rough definition of "max-content" in the writing-modes spec. ("...the narrowest measure a box could take while fitting around its contents if none of the optional line break opportunities within the box were taken.") [ref: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-writing-modes/#max-content-measure ] That's why I think relying on "fill-available" for stretched flex items might be better, when we know we're going to be stretching an item beyond its max-content size. (see my second post on this thread -- I initially said "fit-content", but I think I meant to say "fill-available") Thanks, ~Daniel
Received on Monday, 1 October 2012 22:53:24 UTC