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

Re: [css-flexbox] max-content contribution incorrectly defined for flex items

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 04:18:48 -0700
Message-ID: <55D9AC18.7040106@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 08/21/2015 12:20 AM, fantasai wrote:
>
>>    https://drafts.csswg.org/css-flexbox-1/#intrinsic-sizes
>
> Okay, I went over this section with dholbert today, and we've
> concluded that the spec needs the following changes:
>
> 1. Define the min-content and max-content contributions of a
>     flex *item* to be its min/max-content size, clamped as
>     appropriate.
>
>     [ As aforementioned, the spec references their "hypothetical
>       base size", which returns the min/max-content sizes when
>       the flex basis is 'content', but doesn't give correct
>       results (returns zero) in the the "flex: 1" case. ]
>
> 2. Clamp the flex items' min/max-content size contributions
>     not just by the min/max-width/height properties, but also,
>     if the item is inflexible in any direction, by its flex
>     base size.
>
>     [ For example, a shrinkable but not-growable item should
>       have its contribution also be min()ed against its flex
>       base size, not just its max-width/height. ]
>
> 3. Don't floor the flex factor at 1.
>
>     [ This might be left over prose from before we had partial
>       flexes. ]
>
> 4. Change "flex: 1" to expand to "1 1 0" instead of "1 1 0%",
>
>     [ We used 0% because in intrinsic size calculations it
>       would fall back to 'auto', but this is a hack that
>         a) doesn't give great results in many cases
>         b) breaks given a correct implementation of flex
>            container intrinsic sizing per spec
>     ]
>
> 5. Make sure things are worded so we don't divide by zero. :)

Okay, I've checked in these changes, as they're really just bugfixes
against errors in this section.

> The one thing up in the air is if the flex base size should
> be considered a desired size, and therefore factored into
> the intrinsic size calculation.

This is still up in the air.

~fantasai
Received on Sunday, 23 August 2015 14:01:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 23 August 2015 14:01:17 UTC