W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2015

Re: [css-flexbox] intrinsic sizing

From: Christian Biesinger <cbiesinger@google.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 15:27:14 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPTJ0XHPw7JWMpxcitGqQLtRz6ky1uxV_MV+p-ddy2WvWauC3A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com> wrote:
> On 04/06/2015 09:24 AM, Christian Biesinger wrote:
>> It says "For each flex item, subtract its flex base size from its
>> max-content contribution size"
>>
>> However, doesn't calculating the flex base size require laying out the
>> item? I didn't think that calculating intrinsic widths should require
>> layout?
>
> I think I agree. Maybe this should depend on whether the flex-basis is
> definite (case A from flex base size determination), and/or
> definite-via-an-aspect-ratio (case B)?

That seems reasonable to me.

>> My second question is:
>> "Place all flex items into lines of infinite length."
>>
>> If we place them on lines of infinite length, doesn't that mean we
>> have just a single line?
>
> Yes, unless there's a forced break. See:
>   http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-flexbox/#algo-line-break
> Items are added to a line as long as they fit (which they always will on
> an infinite-length line, as you say) "or until a forced break is
> encountered". Forced breaks are defined here:
>   http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-flexbox/#pagination

Ah thanks. Out of curiosity, does Gecko implement forced breaks?

-christian
Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2015 19:27:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:30 UTC