- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 18:25:33 -0400
- To: Christian Biesinger <cbiesinger@google.com>
- Cc: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 04/04/2016 06:04 PM, Christian Biesinger wrote: > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 5:44 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: >> On 04/04/2016 05:23 PM, Daniel Holbert wrote: >>> >>> On 04/04/2016 01:57 PM, fantasai wrote: >>>> >>>> (Fwiw, we did clarify that if an item with a definite flex basis >>>> is inflexible, it is considered definite. [1]) >>>> [1] https://hg.csswg.org/drafts/rev/fbcbe170c119 >>> >>> >>> Two concerns about this -- so, the new language here is: >>> # Note: An inflexible item with a definite flex basis >>> # is, by definition, definite. >>> >>> CONCERN #1: "definite" is a term that applies to lengths, not to items. >>> So, the "item ... is ... definite" language doesn't make any sense here. >>> This really wants to say that the item's main size is definite, I think? >> >> >> Yes, good point. Fixed. > > Also, what does "inflexible" mean in this context? Both flex-grow and > shrink being zero or do I have to also figure out which one applies to > determine whether it is definite? Both being zero. Switched to "fully inflexibe" and added definition... ~fantasai
Received on Monday, 4 April 2016 22:26:05 UTC