- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 14:39:59 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 12/08/2012 12:27 AM, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu wrote: > (12/12/04 6:23), Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote: >>> http://jsfiddle.net/GgzGf/6/ >>> >>> If a percentage height doesn't apply (e.g. because it's standards mode and >>> the containing block is auto-sized), should stretch apply to that flex item? >>> >>> Currently in WebKit and, per the flexbox spec, it does not. I don't feel >>> strongly either way. Just want to confirm that this is the desired behavior. >> >> Okay, based on this thread and the existing browser behavior, we've >> clarified step 11 in the layout algo to say that it looks at the >> *computed* value of the cross-size property to tell whether it can >> stretch or not. Based on the errata mentioned in this thread, that >> means that percentages which later turn into auto behavior won't get >> stretched. > > I think we should avoid using "computed value" here because it's just > very confusing to any reader of CSS 2.1 before the bug raised by Anton > is resolved[1]. Why can't we just say "specified value" here, if I > understand the change correctly? It would then not depend on reading the > mailing list to get the intended behavior. > > I was in fact very confused and thought that this change makes a > "height: 20%; align-self: stretch;" flex item stretch and wrote a longer > mail against this wording. > > [1] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15392 Well, we finally got the errata updated: http://www.w3.org/Style/css2-updates/REC-CSS2-20110607-errata.html#s.10.5a Maybe someday there'll be a CSS2.1 spec update to go with it. ~fantasai
Received on Monday, 22 July 2013 21:40:28 UTC