- From: Sergio Villar Senin <svillar@igalia.com>
- Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 10:01:03 +0100
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 02/02/15 19:04, Peter Salas wrote: > 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? It makes total sense and indeed answers my question. Thanks. BR
Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2015 09:01:37 UTC