- From: davidsgrogan via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2020 22:55:20 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> > 5.2.1 exists to deal with cyclic percentages but there is no cyclic percentage in this case. > > So 5.2.1c just doesn't apply to the example in the original comment? I'm not sure... > The flex container has a definite `width:150px`, so `<input width="100%">` is not a cyclic percentage. It's definite and should resolve to a specified size suggestion of `150px` by following just the [Flexbox spec 4.5](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-flexbox-1/#specified-size-suggestion). Yeah, I agree that's what I'd expect to happen. My confusion stems because I think the current spec in 5.2.1.c dictates that specified size suggestion is `0px` in this case. @fantasai said that this compressible behavior was needed for compat, and it looks like it was originally for images in tables -- I doubt replaced elements as flexbox items had compat problems back in 2017. So, my point is, I'm not sure why the flex/grid automatic minimum size stuff was ever put in 5.2.1c. There probably was a good reason, I just don't know it and I'm confused by the results. > I agree that we should make 5.2.1c reflected clearly in the Flexbox and Grid specs. At least, I was not aware of 5.2.1c while implementing flexbox size suggestions. Neither did I! I agree: if we do continue with the compressible behavior in automatic minimum size calculations, we should incorporate it into flex and grid specs somehow. Or a note in flex/grid pointing to here or something. -- GitHub Notification of comment by davidsgrogan Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5665#issuecomment-738414715 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 3 December 2020 22:55:22 UTC