- From: Peter Salas <psalas@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 18:04:30 +0000
- To: Sergio Villar Senin <svillar@igalia.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
- CC: Rossen Atanassov <Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com>
Sergio Villar Senin wrote: > I was lately wondering why we need this thing of "mark/unmark as infinitely > growable"[1] step in the track sizing algorithm. I'm including some Microsoft > folks on Cc because this comes from the initial algorithm. My point is, I think > having something like this is useless as it does not add any specific new > behavior to the algorithm. Let me explain why. > > The last two steps of "Increase sizes to accommodate spanning items" > section are only run for those tracks whose max track sizing function is max- > content (tracks with min-content as max track sizing function are only > considered for the first of those two steps). > > So we have two possibilities when evaluating intrinsic maximums: > > 1- the growth limit does not change from infinite to finite: then the track is > still infinitely growable for the last step and we don't need to mark anything > as infinitely growable. > > 2- the growth limit changes from infinite to finite: in this case we don't need > to mark anything as infinitely growable, because when evaluating the max- > content maximums all those tracks will be eligible to grow beyond limits (as > they're max-content) so they'll effectively behave as if they were infinitely > growable. > > Am I missing something? I think this is the same question that we discussed here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Mar/0512.html Does that thread answer your question? -Peter
Received on Monday, 2 February 2015 18:04:59 UTC