- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 21:04:29 -0500
- 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