- From: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 11:24:57 -0800
- To: Greg Whitworth <gwhit@microsoft.com>, Philip Walton <philip@philipwalton.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 02/23/2015 10:46 AM, Greg Whitworth wrote: > I think it should be 300x300 due to what is defined in minimum sizes (http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-flexbox/#min-size-auto) > > Since you did not set a min-width we end up going down "content size" which basically asks the content how big it is, in this case 300px. Huh -- this doesn't match what Firefox does in this case, but it looks like you're right according to the current spec. Until August 2014, the "min-width:auto" language in the spec explicitly said to *ignore* the min-content size for flex items that have an intrinsic aspect ratio. This is what Firefox does, since I implemented our most recent "min-width:auto" incarnation in July 2014; so we size the image to be 150px wide. I saw the August rewrite of this section go by, but I was under the impression that it the rewrite was just making clarifications & better handling edge cases. But I'm now noticing that it actually changed this important point as well - it changed to now *consider* the min-content size, when resolving "min-width:auto" on flex items that have intrinsic aspect ratios. I wish I'd noticed that at the time... I don't think I agree with that change, and I'm curious if it was intentional & why it was changed. I picked up a different thread to ask about that change: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Feb/0485.html ~Daniel
Received on Tuesday, 24 February 2015 19:25:30 UTC