- From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 13:16:08 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: W3C WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
On 6/26/13 1:09 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote: >> On 6/20/13 6:16 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >>>On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote: >>>> I'm looking at what happens when a flex item's hypothetical cross size >>>>is >>>> larger than the container's definite cross size. There seems to be a >>>>bit >>>> of inconsistency (though it's interoperable inconsistency between >>>>Blink >>>> and Gecko, at least). >>>> >>>> Consider a flex container with max-height of 100px that contains one >>>>flex >>>> item (A) with 'height:150px' and another flex item (B) with >>>>'height:auto' >>>> but whose hypothetical cross size from step 7 ends up at 150px. You >>>>can >>>> see something similar at [2] >>>> >>>> If these items are any alignment other than 'stretch' then they are >>>> consistently 150px tall. >>>> >>>> But if the alignment is 'stretch' then A is 150px tall and B is 100px >>>> tall. The 'stretch' value causes a flex item to shrink. >>>> >>>> Step 11 of section 9.4 [1] accounts for this, but is this the correct >>>> result? If not, we could add an additional caveat such as, "and its >>>> hypothetical cross size is smaller than the used cross size of its >>>>flex >>>> line" >>> >>>Yes, it's intentional. >>> >>>~TJ >> >> Could you go into the scenarios where this is useful? At least in my >> testing having a child's contents overflow doesn't seem to be a better >> result than allowing a child to overflow the container. >> >> I'm asking because of the auto-height regions in a flex container case. >>If >> the result of the regions processing model says that an auto-height >>region >> is a particular height, then having something increase that height does >> not change the named flow fragment that fits into the region. An >> auto-height region either has the entire remainder of the flow, or the >> content up to the next region break. Increasing the region height >>doesn't >> change either of those fragments. >> >> But decreasing the region height could change the fragmentation, and >>that >> would cause us to have to re-calculate the fragmentation and heights for >> the rest of the region chain. If we could guarantee that stretch does >>not >> make flex items shrink, then this interaction could be less complicated. > >Can you walk through how this would happen? > >As far as I can tell, the shrinking occurs before you actually >determine how much of the region flow should go into the box. > >~TJ See the regions/flexbox thread from today [1]. You and I have different opinions on what happens when. When I say that the result of the regions processing model provides an input to the flex layout algorithm, I mean the *entire* regions processing model. You're picking out an answer from the middle. Thanks, Alan [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Jun/0623.html
Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2013 20:16:38 UTC