- From: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 15:55:54 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 08/18/2014 03:28 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > I changed it to "the used > 'flex-basis', if the computed 'flex-basis' was "auto",". This is dumb, > because it's stopped paying attention to the flex-basis when it's just > a definite length. I don't think that was dumb -- I saw it as *correct* that min-size:auto shouldn't pay attention to definite "flex-basis" values. Consider e.g. <div style="flex: 1">Text</div> ...which is equivalent to: <div style="flex: 1 1 0%">Text</div> The goal of "min-width:auto" is to enforce a minimum size on that flex item -- its min-content width -- despite the fact that it has an explicitly specified flex-basis of 0. So if space is constrained, it should get at least enough width to fit its contents, even if that's a bit more than its "flex:1" would merit. But if its flex-basis:0% is one of the sources for resolving min-width:auto, then we wouldn't do any such clamping here, and that use-case would break. ~Daniel
Received on Monday, 18 August 2014 22:56:21 UTC