- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 18:14:48 -0400
- 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