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

Re: [css-flexbox] Behaviour of percentage heights in column direction

From: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 12:39:43 -0800
To: Greg Whitworth <gwhit@microsoft.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Rossen Atanassov <Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
message-id: <54F4CA8F.606@mozilla.com>
Just discussed these 3 issues with Rossen/fantasai/Tab/Greg. Since I've listed all 3 issues all here, I'll post the results for all 3 here, too.

(For (2) and (3), I'll also post on their own threads as well.)

On 02/24/2015 04:51 PM, Daniel Holbert wrote:
>  (1) This thread here: "should we make 'min-height:auto' taint the resulting flexed height on a vertical flex item & make it indefinite?" (I slightly lean towards 'yes' for perf reasons; Greg disagrees; I'm OK either way.)
> Link to thread (hey, you're already here!):
>   https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Feb/0205.html

Answer: no, min-height:auto doesn't make something indefinite.
* Spec change needed: clarify section 9.8 (1st sentence at least) to mention that "definite sizes" *can* in fact depend (in part) on content measurements.

>  (2) "Should min/max size properties be *actively suppressed* when you have to do layout to resolve the flex base size?" (Firefox & IE say "yes, suppress them". The spec used to be explicit about this, but became more vague probably-accidentally, as I noted in the thread.  Chrome disagrees with Firefox/IE & does not suppress the effects of the min/max sizing properties.)
> Link to thread:
>  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Feb/0377.html

Answer: yes. This is already implied, but not quite clear enough (particularly given that Chrome/Blink didn't implement it this way).
* Spec change needed: clarify 9.3.3 D & E to indicate that anything inside of "lay out the item" there *excludes* min/max clamping.

>  (3) "Should min-content size be considered at all, when resolving min-width:auto on an element with an intrinsic aspect ratio?" (Firefox says no; it sounds like IE says yes. The spec used to agree with Firefox, and was then changed -- though it sounded like the rewrite that changed it was just intended to cover more edge cases, not to change behavior like this.)
> Link to thread:
>  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Feb/0485.html

Answer: Yes. The current spec text on this (depending on image's min-content size) is intentional & is needed to prevent images from mysteriously shrinking (by default) in a flex container with e.g. 2 flex items -- an image and a paragraph of text.
Received on Monday, 2 March 2015 20:40:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:29 UTC