- From: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 16:11:05 -0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 03/02/2015 12:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > So, this doesn't work. [...] > If you have min-width:auto, then you need to calculate the min-content > size of the flex item. This doesn't care about the width or > flex-basis, it cares about the min-size contributions of the flex > item's children. We thus can't treat a percentage on a child as > resolving against a definite width here, because we're in the process > of computing that width; but if the width isn't definite, then the > percentage becomes auto *here*, and then a resolved definite value > *later*, which is confusing and weird and two-pass, and we'd like to > avoid two-pass layout in the default case. (In other words, this > becomes just a variant of the option C two-pass layout.) Right -- this what I was trying to get across in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Feb/0489.html and elsewhere in that thread, but you explained it here better than I did. > So I think we're screwed and need to go with option A. This is unfortunate, but I think I agree, for perf reasons (to avoid getting O(n^2) behavior *by default* for some pretty simple cases, due to the two-pass layout that can't really be avoided). ~Daniel
Received on Tuesday, 3 March 2015 00:11:35 UTC