W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2013

Re: [css-flexbox] min-width/height: min-content defaults for replaced items and overflow containers

From: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 13:14:42 -0700
Message-ID: <519149B2.7060309@mozilla.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:29 UTC