- From: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:12:50 -0700
- To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai@inkedblade.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 06/11/2012 06:07 PM, Alex Mogilevsky wrote: > ± So right now, the spec is calling for all flexbox items to have *both* their min- > ± width *and* their min-height default to "min-content". > ± > ± I'd thought we only wanted this magic for the main axis's min-size property, not > ± for both min-size properties. Maybe I misunderstood though? > > We want the magic in both direction To be clearer / more specific: do we want "min-height:auto" to ever compute to something nonzero on a flex item in a horizontal flexbox? I don't think we do. Now -- in the *main* axis, there's a good reason for the magic, because without it, common values of the "flex" shorthand could easily end up shrinking an item below its min-content width. But in the cross axis, there aren't any flexbox-specific sizing surprises like that, IIUC. So I don't see a good reason for the cross-axis min-size property to have a magical default there when it computes to 0 everywhere else. > The actual magic that we want is "minimum size of content when laid out within constraints of cross size of flexbox". This makes sense to me (for the main-axis min-size property), though what you're describing is much more nuanced & complex than what the WD currently says... ~Daniel
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2012 19:13:24 UTC