W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2014

Re: [css-flexbox] Fixing a mistake with flex-grow betwen 0 and 1

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 17:23:42 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBFBR90WKTugWeJpAsB0L2ZAiQWdEmNFG__UCrKeaVnrQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 8:03 AM, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> On 10/07/2013 04:10 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>> In specific edits, this would just be a change in the
>>> <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-flexbox/#resolve-flexible-lengths>
>>> section - insert a step 2.5 that checks if the free space is positive
>>> and the sum of the flex-grows are <1, and if so, sets all the flex
>>> items to their hypothetical main size + the corresponding fraction of
>>> the free space, then exits the algorithm.
>> Why do this as "step 2.5"?  I'd think that Step 5 ("Distribute free
>> space proportional to the flex factors") would be the obvious place to
>> make this tweak. (just changing the ratio that we use, if the sum of the
>> flex-grow factors is < 1, but otherwise doing everything normally)
> Because I don't want it to be part of the cycling, and exiting as soon
> as possible seemed appropriate.  Exact placement can be tweaked,
> though.
>> Why exit the algorithm? I'd expect that we'd need to proceed with the
>> "Fix min/max violations" and continue cycling as appropriate.
>> Otherwise, we'd never discover min/max violations, and we'd end up with
>> elements sized too small or too large for those constraints.
>> (If instead we moved this logic to be in Step 5, as suggested above, and
>> dropped the "exit", then I think we'd honor the constraints correctly...)
> Right, I accidentally forgot to include the "fix min/max violations"
> part, and then forgot to reply to the thread saying I'd forgotten it.
> ^_^
> I had another response written here, but I deleted it because I
> managed to convince myself of the opposite conclusion that I set out
> with.  ^_^  Okay, so I think we can avoid discontinuities by slightly
> rewriting the flex distribution algo:
> 1. Initially each flexible element claims an amount of *desired free
> space* proportional to its flex.  A flex of 1 means "all the free
> space", a flex of 2 means "twice the free space", a flex of .5 means
> "half the free space". This initial claim of free space is maintained
> throughout the algorithm as the *originally desired free space*.
> 2. Loop:
>   2.1. If the sum of desired free space is greater than the actual
> free space, normalize all the desired free spaces so that the sum
> equals the total.
>   2.2. Fix min/max violations, freezing the violators and reducing the
> actual free space accordingly.  If there were no violations, exit the
> loop.
>   2.3. Of the remaining unfrozen items, reset their desired free space
> to their originally desired free space.  Return to the beginning of
> the loop.
> 3. Set each element's main size to its preferred main size + its
> desired free space.
> This means that an element with flex:.2 will *always* claim 20% of the
> free space, unless other elements end up claiming too much.  Example:
> <div style="display: flex; width: 100px;">
>   <div style="flex: .2;"></div>
>   <div style="flex: .2; max-width: 10px;"></div>
> </div>
> We'll run flexing, setting both to 20px.  Fix the max violation.  Re
> run flexing, still setting the first to 20px.  Done.  This is
> continuous up through 5 element with the same flex.  Heck, you can
> have *8* copies of the second div (all claiming 10px of space), and
> the first element will sit there with a size of 20px the whole time.
> When you bump it to 9 constrained items, it'll finally shrink to 10px,
> as desired.  This seems like it avoids the continuity problems.
> Similarly, if you increase the flex of the second item, the first will
> remain 20px the whole time.  There's no discontinuity as the second
> item cross flex:.8.
> This algorithm should be identical to the current flexing algorithm
> when all the items have a flex of 1+, or when the non-violating items
> in the final cycle have a sum of flexes 1+.

For closure (and DoC purposes), I made these edits, and I accept the
changes. ^_^

Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2014 01:24:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:40 UTC