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". ~TJReceived on Friday, 21 October 2011 00:14:03 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:06 UTC