- From: Bruno Racineux <bruno@hexanet.net>
- Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 21:15:04 -0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 11/10/13 10:00 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >For example, in the case you bring up, where you're using table-cell >as a fallback, 'stretch' matches the 'table-cell' behavior. > Well, fair point if your layout consist of visually individual boxes, yes. Perhaps a bit less valid for the 'inline-flex' case. I have yet to try a reliable fallback for that... >It may be >that in your particular case that matching isn't important, but for >many people it will be. We're optimizing the default case for >usability, not performance, here. Right. Although the multiline 'align-content: stretch' default in the 'cross-axis' is going to be a much more rare (or rather less frequent) use case in practice than 'align-content: flex-start'. While I understand your point, the default case for stretching it all, is unfortunately on the most performance heavy side, while not always discernible as such, even when unnecessary. > >Finally, Flexbox has been shipping with its current defaults for too >long to change anymore, even if we wanted to. Oh well. Maybe it's worth having a note that says: "If the children items' height is contained with a 'manually set' height across all items. The browser performance of flex will be best served with 'align-items' or 'align-content' (in multiline context) as 'flex-start'". Or something along those lines just to put that in records somewhere.
Received on Monday, 11 November 2013 05:15:33 UTC