[css3-flexbox] Bad result in flex algorithm when combining stretch, and elements with an aspect ratio) from Tab Atkins Jr. on 2012-12-03 (www-style@w3.org from December 2012) (original) (raw)

On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kanghaol@oupeng.com> wrote:

(12/10/28 23:51), Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

However, that brings up a further problem. If you first stretch, but the item is also flexible, the flexing can cause it to no longer fill the flex line. In other words, it might simply be impossible to simultaneously honor the aspect ratio, the 'stretch' keyword, and a non-zero "flex" value. This is similar to how you can't always simultaneously honor width, height, and the aspect ratio. We satisfy the latter by breaking the ratio; we consider an explicit width and height to be stronger than the implicit aspect ratio.

I think there is a relevant question here:

Should a replaced item's, say, min cross size property induce a min main size when an item flexes?

The current spec

Fix min/max violations. Clamp each item's main size by its min and

max main size properties....

seems to say it doesn't, but this might produce stretched images when the item is laid out after flexing, no matter what 'align-self' it has, since min/max properties are strong.

I think the spec could consider saying that for an replaced element, it's the effective min main size that's used in this step. The effective min main size is defined by this formula:

max( min main size, min ( min cross size * w/h , max main size ) )

where

w is the intrinsic width, h is the intrinsic height max main size is the maximal of the max main size and the min main size properties

. And effective max main size would be defined similarly.

Or was it resolved that the min cross size property should be ignored in this case?

We don't generally let aspect ratios transfer sizing constrains from one dimension to another in CSS, so we've decided to continue this trend and not have any special behavior here. The min/max size is eventually respected, but it may mean that the aspect-ratio is lost when it's theoretically possible for us to preserve it.

For example, the min-height property does not imply a min-width constraint in block layout if width is non-auto.

~TJ

Received on Monday, 3 December 2012 22:00:37 UTC