- From: François REMY via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 17:24:11 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Your second question is the key here. The image should not be 32px because there is a cross-size due to how flex works (the flex container has a definite size in both directions, and items have their height set to whatever value the flexbox resolves to; the next step is the). This was incorporated in the computation of the minimum size, see the following spec text: > In general, the automatic minimum size is the smaller of its content size and its specified size. > > **However, if the box has an aspect ratio and no specified size, its automatic minimum size is the smaller (15px) of its content size (32px) and its transferred size (15px * 32/32)**. > > If the box has neither a specified size nor an aspect ratio, its automatic minimum size is the content size. If you set min-width and min-height to 0px, this spec text does not even apply and you will be able to shrink to fit in all cases. ----------- The actual question in this thread is whether taking the automatic-minimum-size from the content-size makes sense for boxes that have an aspect ratio and a transferred size, because it results in flexing in the second case which is unexpected. If we changed the spec text to say that if there is an aspect ratio and a transferred size, use that. Otherwise use the content size. Then the first and second test case would match in results. -- GitHub Notification of comment by FremyCompany Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1112#issuecomment-289523325 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 27 March 2017 17:24:17 UTC