- From: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 13:14:42 -0700
- To: Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
On 04/22/2013 04:50 PM, Elliott Sprehn wrote: > Recently the spec for flexbox was changed so that the min-width of flex > items was no longer min-content [...] > instead I think we > should combine the behavior so the min-width is min-content unless your > overflow property computes to a value other than visible in which case > it should be 0. Note that before the recent "min-width:auto", Alex proposed a very similar custom-min-sizing-behavior-when-overflow-is-set idea: # One solution could be to fix exactly that - if # 'overflow' is not 'visible', 'min-content' is not 'auto' by default http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Mar/0125.html ...and Tab said he'd be OK with that, but was worried about this introducing an additional special case: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Mar/0133.html And then the CSSWG ended up passing on that solution (implicitly at least) and dropping min-width/min-height:auto, which suggests that this proposal wasn't compelling enough to go for. As an implementer, I'm pretty hesitant to shake up something as fundamental as flex-item min-sizing behavior at this point in the spec lifetime. ~Daniel
Received on Monday, 13 May 2013 20:15:11 UTC