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

RE: [css-flexbox] Renaming flex-basis:auto for less confusion

From: Rossen Atanassov <Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 20:43:34 +0000
To: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
CC: Greg Whitworth <gwhit@microsoft.com>, Julien Chaffraix <jchaffraix@google.com>
Message-ID: <2ba394772ffd4a90b86dae54ab1b488c@BY2PR03MB192.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Holbert [mailto:dholbert@mozilla.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 2:01 PM
> FWIW, I've got a metabug to track back-compat issues (broken web content),
> discovered by this implementation-change in Firefox:
>  https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1057162

> So far, I'm only aware of 3 instances of breakage (and all have been fixed by
> reaching out to the web developers involved). See the bug dependencies for
> more info.
Have you seen any further reports. Our current crawl data suggests a much higher number of instances where this will result in breakage (note that this is true for mobile content only).
> I'm open to the alternative proposal ('auto' for size lookup; 'content'
> for automatic sizing), if it ends up being the case that back-compat issues are
> too common to fix on a case-by-case basis, though.

I still believe that we should adopt the second proposal of this issue ('auto' / 'content'). It is safer from back-compat POV as well as arguably easier to teach/use.

Are you at a point where changing your implementations is not an option?

Received on Monday, 3 November 2014 20:44:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:26 UTC