- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 20:47:17 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 05/11/2015 12:14 AM, Christian Biesinger wrote: > Hi there! > > So Ojan and I were looking again at > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-flexbox/#intrinsic-sizes > > What is the broader issue that this complex algorithm is trying to > solve? In particular, why is it better than just summing up the flex > bases (if definite) or the max-content contributions (otherwise)? Its goal is to preserve the flex ratios. E.g. if you have (using Ahem) <flexbox> <item flex:1>A A</item> <item flex:2>B B</item> </flexbox> and ask it to shrinkwrap, you probably want A to lay out at 3em and B to lay out at 6em. Without this rule, the boxes would lay out at 2em and 4em, respectively, causing the text in A to wrap even though there is plenty of space to lay out at its max-content size. > Maybe a note can be added explaining that? Yeah, we can take that as an action item. ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 12 May 2015 03:47:46 UTC