On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com> wrote: > On 08/18/2014 03:28 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> 2. (Assuming a row flexbox.) We previously allowed max-width to >> contribute to min-width:auto, and later allowed max-height + an >> intrinsic aspect ratio to contribute, but we didn't generalize that to >> the 'width' case as well, so that a definite 'height' + aspect ratio >> would contribute. That's fixed now. > > I think this part makes sense. It looks like this was basically > expanding on "any definite size constraints in the opposite dimension" > from the old spec-text, which is good. I suspect this resolves a > request-for-clarification that I'd posed about this spec-text a little > while back.[1] Yes, it was in response to that. > (In that post, I was focusing on the cross-axis *min* > size as the relevant "constraint", but it appears I should instead have > been focusing on the cross-axis *max* size, which in retrospect makes > sense.) min size will usually be zero, so we can't transport it across the aspect ratio; it'll nearly always dominate the terms and produce a min-size of 0. ~TJReceived on Tuesday, 19 August 2014 00:20:36 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:45 UTC