- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:13:15 -0700
- To: Rossen Atanassov <Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Rossen Atanassov <Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com> wrote: >Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com> >> wrote: >> > I like this much better. This way positive and negative flex will never mix in one >> result, and you achieve the goal of min-width to limit the final outcome, not >> distribution. >> >> Glad you're happy about it! > > Why is min-width the limiting factor here and not max(min-width, minimum-preferred-width) ? In such cases the flex is already overconstrained causing an overflow, so why not respect the minimum size of the content? I don't understand. There is no "minimum preferred width". ~TJ
Received on Friday, 21 October 2011 00:14:03 UTC