- From: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 10:22:37 +0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
So are we OK with making "flex" shorthand set the flex basis to 0% by default, then, since that has the dont-shrink-me-bro properties that Tab was looking for in [1]? (I'd be in favor of that spec change, FWIW, in part because Mozilla's implementation already does this, because the spec used to explicitly require this as I noted in [2]. :) ) ~Daniel [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013May/0342.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013May/0353.html On 05/16/2013 01:59 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote: >> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Wouldn't 0% *also* resolve to "auto" for cases where things *were* >>> "able to flex", but the flexbox didn't have a definite width/height? >> >> When does that happen? > > On second thought, I don't think it does. Never mind. ^_^ > > ~TJ >
Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2013 02:23:06 UTC