W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2014

Re: [css-flexbox] Fixed mistakes in min-size:auto section, please review

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 17:19:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCofCikTG6n0+UnzszeBMxqpeh_CL4xpS5zpimCXR4JjQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com> wrote:
> On 08/18/2014 03:28 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> 2. (Assuming a row flexbox.) We previously allowed max-width to
>> contribute to min-width:auto, and later allowed max-height + an
>> intrinsic aspect ratio to contribute, but we didn't generalize that to
>> the 'width' case as well, so that a definite 'height' + aspect ratio
>> would contribute.  That's fixed now.
>
> I think this part makes sense.  It looks like this was basically
> expanding on "any definite size constraints in the opposite dimension"
> from the old spec-text, which is good.  I suspect this resolves a
> request-for-clarification that I'd posed about this spec-text a little
> while back.[1]

Yes, it was in response to that.

> (In that post, I was focusing on the cross-axis *min*
> size as the relevant "constraint", but it appears I should instead have
> been focusing on the cross-axis *max* size, which in retrospect makes
> sense.)

min size will usually be zero, so we can't transport it across the
aspect ratio; it'll nearly always dominate the terms and produce a
min-size of 0.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2014 00:20:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 19 August 2014 00:20:36 UTC