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. ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2014 22:15:24 UTC
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4