- From: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 17:15:59 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 09/11/2013 04:07 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> 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. [...] > As far as fantasai and I can tell, the Chrome/Opera behavior is > currently mandated by the spec. On the other hand, it's 1am right > now. So, would you mind walking through the algorithm, as you believe > it should be run, and let us know why you think the Firefox behavior > is correct? I can if necessary, but first let me just re-pose my confusion about the Opera/Chrome behavior, to possibly clarify things. [For simplicity, let's ignore the fact that we've got nested flex containers -- I'll just be discussing the outermost (vertical) flex container, and I'll be considering its contents a black box.] So -- given the following... (A) "align-self" doesn't have any effect the algorithm until Step 11. (B) The flex container's main size (height) has already been set before that point -- back in step 4. Similarly, flex items' main sizes are set long before that point, back in step 6. ... then I don't see any way that a difference in "align-self" could affect the main-size of a flex container or any of its flex items. Does that make sense? Put more concisely still: main-sizes are locked in *before* we take align-self into consideration, so therefore it should be impossible for align-self to influence main-size. Hence my confusion at Opera & Chrome's behavior on my testcase -- they *are* letting a difference in "align-self" affect the main size of the outermost flex container and its flex item. What am I missing? ~Daniel P.S. The spec has one exception to my premise (A) in step 3 -- "If flex item has an intrinsic aspect ratio [then maybe do some stretch-specific stuff]" -- but that doesn't matter here, because we don't have anything with an intrinsic aspect ratio.
Received on Thursday, 12 September 2013 00:16:30 UTC