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

Re: [css-sizing][css-flexbox] intrinsic min/max-width/height values and percentage children

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 21:04:29 -0500
Message-ID: <54C2FDAD.1040107@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 09/24/2014 06:14 PM, fantasai wrote:
> 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.

Edits checked into Sizing.

~fantasai
Received on Saturday, 24 January 2015 02:04:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:51:56 UTC