- From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kanghaol@oupeng.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:53:10 +0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
(12/10/28 23:51), Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > Any objections? Otherwise, I'll edit the flexbox layout algorithm > with the following two changes: > > 1. Add a bullet point to step 3 (hypothetical main size determination) > to handle aspect-ratio items with "stretch" alignment (so they get the > correct hypothetical main size). I am not getting this part. Are you saying that the *correct* hypothetical main size of <image> in the above example is 50px? Why? That doesn't feel right to me.... > 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. This is easier to understand. 'align-self: stretch' has contradicted CSS 2.1 already. For example, a 'height: auto; align-self: stretch;' flex item would already fail the CSS 2.1 requirement for a non-replaced element with 'height: auto' saying that the height is the sum of heights of blocks or lineboxes inside. Therefore, "honoring aspect ratio", being a requirement for a replaced element with 'height: auto;' , would similarly fail to be be satisfied. Cheers, Kenny -- Web Specialist, Oupeng Browser, Beijing Try Oupeng: http://www.oupeng.com/
Received on Monday, 29 October 2012 06:53:48 UTC