- From: fantasai via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2022 07:10:12 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Fwiw, I agree with @davidsgrogan and @aethanyc's positions in the two comments above. I think it shouldn't resolve per CSS2; I can also see why we might want it to, and could be convinced otherwise if we agreed it helped authors. But generally cyclic percentage resolution is weird, and often results in overflow, so I'm not sure how helpful it is. Wrt > If the cyclic dependency was introduced due to a block-size or max-block-size on the containing block I think the fact that it doesn't mention flex-basis is an oversight: we didn't consider such a case hitting this clause. -- GitHub Notification of comment by fantasai Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6822#issuecomment-1021925726 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2022 07:10:14 UTC