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

Re: [css-flexbox] min-width/height: min-content defaults for replaced items and overflow containers

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 08:15:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAeYzKx=5j+6qdPyGp2xRRd1s=9cr3-k3B_BLuVFq7z=g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> On 06/30/2014 03:29 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>>> Based on that assumption, I think we could perhaps more narrowly scope
>>>> the new min-width:auto behavior to address this use case case. In
>>>> particular: instead of making min-width/min-height:auto pull from the
>>>> computed width/height, we could instead make it pull from the computed
>>>> "flex-basis", **when computed flex-basis is auto**.
>>>
>>> Why not just make it always pull from 'flex-basis'?  I think having it
>>> pull from 'width' might have been an accident.  That would have the
>>> same benefits you cite in the rest of your email.
>>
>> That would break the "flex: [positive-number]" use-case, I think.
>
> Ah, that makes sense.  Sure, your suggested change sounds good to me
> then.  I'll discuss it with fantasai tomorrow and decide on it on the
> call Wednesday.

All right, fantasai and I have discussed it and agree with you.  I've
edited it accordingly; we'll verify with the WG tomorrow morning on
the call.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2014 15:16:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:23 UTC