- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 22:42:00 -0800
- To: "Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu" <kanghaol@oupeng.com>
- CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Rossen Atanassov <Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com>, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
On 12/04/2012 01:03 AM, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu wrote: > > # If the flex basis and cross size are both ‘auto’ , the flex > # container is single-line and has a definite cross size, the flex > # item has an intrinsic aspect ratio, and the flex item has > # ‘align-self: stretch’, the flex base size is computed from the > # flex container's inner cross size and the flex item's intrinsic > # aspect ratio. > > Is it intentional that the flex base size computation here ignores > min/max constraint (say, 'min/max-height') on the flex item with > intrinsic aspect ratio? Say, something like this > > <flex height=100> > <img max-height=50 /> > </flex> > > (Note that this is different from another question of mine which has to > do with the flexing algorithm.) You're right. We added that the container's inner cross size should be clamped to the item's min/max cross size before it's used to compute the flex base size. # If the flex basis and cross size are both ‘auto’ , the flex # container is single-line and has a definite cross size, the flex # item has an intrinsic aspect ratio, and the flex item has # ‘align-self: stretch’, the flex base size is computed from the # flex container's inner cross size (clamped to the flex item's # min and max cross size) and the flex item's intrinsic aspect # ratio. Please let us know if this looks correct yet. :) ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2013 06:42:43 UTC