- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 16:08:38 -0700
- To: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com> wrote: > 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. Hm, you're right. I was operating under the assumption that "flex-basis: 100px;" and "flex-basis: main-size; width: 100px;" should be absolutely identical in all circumstances, but I guess this is a situation where they can have different behavior. I'll remove the first bullet-point, then. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 18 August 2014 23:09:25 UTC