- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 11:47:19 -0800
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 10/30/2013 01:47 PM, Daniel Holbert wrote: > On 10/30/2013 01:39 PM, Daniel Holbert wrote: >> Also, here's a simpler testcase that demonstrates this issue: >> http://people.mozilla.org/~dholbert/tests/flexbox/can-stretch-affect-main-size-2.html >> >> (Hopefully this 2nd testcase is easier to reason about than the one I >> posted before, since it only uses a single flex container, instead of >> nested containers). > > For the record, here's a brief overview of what happens when rendering > this new testcase: > > So, we've got a fixed-width vertical flexbox, which has one flex item > (an inflexible auto-sized div), which itself contains a 50%-width div > with text "A A A". Everything is auto-height. > > To determine the main size (height) of the flex item, we reflow it with > its preferred width, which is the preferred width of its child, which is > the width of "A A A". But unfortunately, when we (temporarily) give the > item that width, its own child has to resolve *its* 50%-width against > that, and so the "A A A" text doesn't fit and ends up wrapping to 3 > lines. So we end up with a height of ~3em for that flex item (and the > flex container). Cool, so now we've established the main size of the > item & container: ~3em. We proceed with the rest of the flex algorithm. > > Firefox, Chrome, and Opera(Presto) all agree on this result, BTW, when > we're using "align-self: flex-end" (or any other value besides "stretch"). > > But when we use "align-self: stretch", then Opera and Chrome end up > using a different main-size (~1 em, instead of ~3em). That difference > doesn't make sense to me from the current spec, because the "align-self" > value isn't supposed to be taken into account until after we've already > locked in the main size. (But I'd like to change that.) OK, we *think* we've fixed this by tweaking various bits of wording. Hopefully the spec is overall clearer at this point, and also correct. Let us know if this seems correctly fixed. ^_^ ~fantasai and TJ
Received on Friday, 7 March 2014 19:47:49 UTC