- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 13:25:33 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
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 > 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. 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]) [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Mar/0268.html ~fantasai
Received on Monday, 13 May 2013 20:26:01 UTC