- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 17:36:19 -0700
- To: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Hubert SABLONNIERE <hubert.sablonniere@gmail.com>
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com> wrote: > On 07/23/2014 11:45 AM, Daniel Holbert wrote: >> In Firefox, when the height is indefinite, we establish it using the sum >> of the hypothetical main sizes of its children. (I thought this was in >> the spec, but I can't find it at the moment; it's possible it was in an >> older version, or just that I'm misrememebering.) > > Following up on this -- this behavior ^ is indeed correct per the spec: > > # The max-content main size of a flex container > # is the sum of the flex container’s items' max-content > # contributions in the main axis" > [...] > # The main-size min-content/max-content contribution of > # a flex item is its outer hypothetical main size when > # sized under a min-content/max-content constraint > # (respectively). > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-flexbox/#intrinsic-sizes > > Also, here's a modified version of the original codepen, to demonstrate > the key difference here: > http://codepen.io/anon/pen/JfHdE > > Firefox and IE11 render this collapsed. Chrome renders it non-collapsed, > because it seems to be using the items' auto-heights instead of their > flex base sizes to establish the container's height. > > I think Firefox & IE11 are correct. > > The only things I changed in the codepen (w.r.t. the original one on > this thread) are: > - I added "min-height:0", since otherwise Firefox Nightly honors the > default "min-height:auto" which saves it from collapsing. > - I changed "flex: 1 1 0" to "1 1 0px", since IE incorrectly rejects > "1 1 0", as I noted in [1]. > > ~Daniel > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Jul/0442.html Yeah, I agree, this is a Chrome bug. I'll file an issue. (Without min-size:auto, this is less friendly behavior in the common case, but we need to implement that anyway.) ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2014 00:37:06 UTC