- From: Philip Walton <philip@philipwalton.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:31:44 -0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAGRhNhXO+1GkqVFHTf9p-fAyf8FymmbcFyUMaxzVhbbOMk=R+w@mail.gmail.com>
Ahh, that makes perfect sense. Thanks! On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Philip Walton <philip@philipwalton.com> > wrote: > > According to the editors draft of the flexbox spec, the initial > > `flex-shrink` value for flexbox items is 1 and the initial value for > > `flex-basis` is `auto`. > > > > I've linked to a jsbin where there is too much content to fit into a > > containing box, and the way the shrinking is happening in Chrome/IE12 is > > different from FF/Safari. > > > > http://jsbin.com/xetinivozo/1 > > > > Since the initial `flex-shrink` value is 1, it seems perhaps Chrome and > IE > > are correct, but it's unclear how they've chosen the amount they're > > shrinking. > > > > Can anyone speak to which behavior is correct and why? > > Haven't tested IE, but Chrome's behavior is incorrect, and it's > because they haven't yet matched the spec regarding the implied > minimum size of flex items > <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-flexbox/#min-size-auto>. Since they're > not honoring that, the height is allowed to shrink to zero, leaving > only the padding, and then the text overflows downwards. > > The correct behavior, since overflow is "hidden" (the default value) > on the header and footer, is to treat them as "min-height: > min-content;", and not shrink at all, like Firefox does. > > ~TJ >
Received on Tuesday, 16 December 2014 19:32:11 UTC