- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 15:28:38 -0400
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 05/15/2015 12:32 AM, Christian Biesinger wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 1:47 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: >> On 05/11/2015 12:14 AM, Christian Biesinger wrote: >>> 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. > > Actually I would expect A and B both to lay out at 3em. But... I can > see why that wouldn't happen with the current algorithm. If you wanted that, then you should have asked for flex: auto. :) ~fantasai
Received on Friday, 15 May 2015 19:29:07 UTC