- From: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
- Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 18:35:35 -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 05:32 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > I don't think you should interpet that "narrowest measure" quite that > literally for multicol elements. Your interpretation *always* forces > multicol elements into a single column when you set "width: > max-content", which I think is very undesirable. Well, that undesirable thing is exactly what browsers do right now... Opera, Firefox, and Chrome all currently agree that a multicol element should only have a single column, when wrapped in a either a floated div or an inline-block (which I think are both ways of getting the max-content width): https://people.mozilla.com/~dholbert/tests/flexbox/multicol-sizing-1.html (I can't test IE at the moment, as I'm on Ubuntu.) Maybe this is just because multicol is still maturing, though, and this behavior will eventually need to change in all rendering engines? > We very specifically went with max-content over fill-available. I > don't like it nearly as much, but it was intentional. I think this choice (max-content sizing for flex items) was wise for the general case. But I'm wondering whether it might be wise to also add a special-case just for "align-self:stretch". (Maybe you're saying that special-case was considered and rejected -- if so, ok.) I'm not convinced that I like the prospect of this special case, but given the apparent consensus among rendering engines about the max-content size of multicol elements, I think it could provide more intuitive behavior for multicol-in-a-flex-container. I also don't think it'd affect many other types of flex items (but I haven't convinced myself of that yet). In any case: I mostly just want this to be clearly-defined and interoperable. :) ~Daniel
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2012 01:36:03 UTC