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

On 05/13/2013 01:14 PM, Daniel Holbert wrote:
> 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
> ...and Tab said he'd be OK with that, but was worried about this
> introducing an additional special case:
> 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.

Yeah, I remember that concern about the non-obvious interaction with
'overflow'. I also remember asking if we were creating a different
set of problems by removing automatic minimum, and Tab assured me
that it was way less of a problem. Which Elliott just pointed out,
is not true. :/

> 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.

Fair enough, though we did make the change to drop 'auto' only recently.
(Only 2 months ago, as of today. [1])



Received on Monday, 13 May 2013 20:26:01 UTC