On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com> wrote: > On 05/14/2013 11:12 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> Proposed solution: we add a new value, provisionally named >> "dont-shrink-me-bro" until someone comes up with something better. >> This value sticks around until used-value time, eventually being >> treated as 'min-content' if the element is sized under a min-size >> constraint, or 0 otherwise. This becomes the new value for >> 'flex-basis' when it's omitted from the shorthand, so "flex: 1;" >> expands to "flex: 1 1 dont-shrink-me-bro;". > > Isn't "0%" exactly the dont-shrink-me-bro value that you're looking for? > > Generally, if a piece of content with "height: 0%" is being > shrinkwrapped, then the 0% height won't have anything to resolve > against, and so it ends up resolving to auto (effectively min-content) > instead of 0. > > At least, that's how 0% behaves in e.g.: > <!DOCTYPE html> > <div style="height: 0%; border: 1px solid">foo</div> > in my local Opera, Chrome, and Firefox installs. Wouldn't 0% *also* resolve to "auto" for cases where things *were* "able to flex", but the flexbox didn't have a definite width/height? Though I suppose this would happen in the layout algorithm, and we could just *specify* what happens. If this does end up working, I like using it over a new keyword, not least because I still can't think of a good name for it. ~TJReceived on Wednesday, 15 May 2013 17:07:57 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:27 UTC