W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > March 2017

Re: [csswg-drafts] [flex] Sizing images with intrisic aspect-ratio: ¿harmonize with grids?

From: François REMY via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 17:24:11 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-289523325-1490635450-sysbot+gh@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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:09 UTC