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

Re: [css-sizing][css-flexbox] intrinsic min/max-width/height values and percentage children

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 18:14:48 -0400
Message-ID: <54234258.4000407@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 07/01/2014 12:33 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>
> However, Sizing now adds min-content/max-content/etc keywords to
> min/max-width/height, which are indefinite, intrinsic sizes, and
> Flexbox's "min-width/height: auto" value implicitly relies on
> min-content sizing as well. This means that a percentage-sized child
> could be trying to resolve against an intrinsic size even when
> 'width/height' itself is definite.
>
> What should happen in such a situation?
>
> A. Have the percentage child size as for 'auto', as for intrinsic
> 'width/height' values on the parent? (This means that, by default,
> percentage heights will never work on children of flex items, since
> flex items have a default min-size calculation involving the
> min-content height.)
> B. Ignore the potential effects of the min/max size when resolve the
> percentage? (This means the child may underflow/overflow the flex
> item.)
> C. Do a two-pass layout? (We already do this in some cases, like
> percentage cross-sizes resolved against an indefinite flex container.
> But note that stacked 2-pass layouts are O(n^2).)
> D. Something else?

The CSSWG resolved on B at the Sophia F2F.
I've updated the Flexbox spec accordingly; Sizing is still pending edits.

~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2014 22:15:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:46 UTC