W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > July 2021

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-flexbox] should a definite flex-basis always make the main size be definite? (#4311)

From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 22:56:13 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-889512146-1627599372-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
The CSS Working Group just discussed `should definite flex-basis make main size definite?`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: accept proposal and remove note`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;fantasai> Topic: should definite flex-basis make main size definite?<br>
&lt;fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4311<br>
&lt;fantasai> dgrogan: Note in 9.8 ...<br>
&lt;fantasai> TabAtkins: That note should not be adding any conditions ever<br>
&lt;fantasai> dgrogan: Suggestion is to make this note normative and expanding cases where flex item can have a definite size<br>
&lt;fantasai> dholbert: This is issue that ?? brought up last meeting<br>
&lt;fantasai> dholbert: I wanted to check what Firefox did<br>
&lt;fantasai> s/??/biesi/<br>
&lt;fantasai> dholbert: I did follow up, and we do agree with the behavior that cbiesinger and dgrogan are proposing<br>
&lt;fantasai> TabAtkins: this has nothing to do with the note<br>
&lt;fantasai> TabAtkins: This issue is about a flexible flex item with a definite flex basis<br>
&lt;fantasai> dgrogan: That note is inaccurate<br>
&lt;fantasai> dgrogan: Definition of definite is you don't need to lay out to get its size<br>
&lt;fantasai> dgrogan: but many cases here has auto min size<br>
&lt;fantasai> dgrogan: If we go with this idea in the spec issue, can just get rid of the note<br>
&lt;fantasai> dgrogan: I think we're all on board with the idea behind this<br>
&lt;fantasai> dgrogan: do have question about a corner case<br>
&lt;dgrogan> https://jsfiddle.net/dgrogan/4r9npf3z/3/<br>
&lt;fantasai> dgrogan: the flex basis is 'content', but the height of ??? is definite<br>
&lt;fantasai> dholbert: you're talking about 'height: definite'<br>
&lt;fantasai> dholbert: In that case height property is ignored.<br>
&lt;fantasai> dholbert: only affects flex item if 'flex-basis: auto'<br>
&lt;fantasai> dgrogan: Child of the flex item with percentage<br>
&lt;fantasai> dgrogan: resolves against containing block<br>
&lt;fantasai> dgrogan: "percentage is calculated with respect to the height of the containing block. If not specified explicitly, computes to auto."<br>
&lt;fantasai> dgrogan: doesn't trigger behaves as auto clause<br>
&lt;fantasai> dgrogan: I suspect this is minor editorial oversight<br>
&lt;fantasai> dholbert: This is just CSS2 believing that only 'height' property can affect height<br>
&lt;fantasai> dholbert: whereas in flex layout, there's other factors<br>
&lt;fantasai> astearns: So additional normative change that cbiesinger suggested, sounds like we're in agreement to spec<br>
&lt;fantasai> TabAtkins: we will add 4th condition to definiteness of flex items, that definite flex basis always make correspondign axis of flex item definite<br>
&lt;fantasai> TabAtkins: consequently can remove the note<br>
&lt;fantasai> astearns: further comments?<br>
&lt;fantasai> RESOLVED: accept proposal and remove note<br>
&lt;fantasai> &lt;br duration=12m><br>

GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4311#issuecomment-889512146 using your GitHub account

Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 29 July 2021 22:56:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:42:39 UTC