[css3-flexbox] Should intrinsic size definitions account for flex? (was Re: Should "align-self:stretch" have any effect on main-size?)

On Monday 2013-08-19 23:28 -0700, Daniel Holbert wrote:
> >From my reading, the answer from the current flexbox ED is "no" -- the
> spec's algorithm *first* establishes the main size of flex items and of
> the flex container (in section 9.2 through 9.3), and it only takes
> "align-self:stretch" into account when we're midway through section 9.4.
>  But Chrome and Opera don't seem to match my expectations, and I like
> their behavior & think we might want to amend the spec to explicitly
> call for their behavior.
> 
> Consider this testcase:
> http://people.mozilla.org/~dholbert/tests/flexbox/can-stretch-affect-main-size-1.html
> 
> That testcase contains two examples, which only differ in their
> "align-items" value on the outermost (vertical) container.

I think this testcase also raises a second question, which is
whether the very simple definitions of intrinsic size in
http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-flexbox/#intrinsic-sizes are really
correct.  A definition that accounted for the values of 'flex'
(perhaps in similar ways to the ways table intrinsic width
computation accounts for percentage widths on cells/columns) might
have led to a more sensible preferred size for the inner flexbox
here, and thus avoided the problem entirely.

-David

-- 
𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla                          https://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
             Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
             What I was walling in or walling out,
             And to whom I was like to give offense.
               - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)