- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 08:15:59 -0700
- To: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
- Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com> wrote: >> On 06/30/2014 03:29 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >>>> Based on that assumption, I think we could perhaps more narrowly scope >>>> the new min-width:auto behavior to address this use case case. In >>>> particular: instead of making min-width/min-height:auto pull from the >>>> computed width/height, we could instead make it pull from the computed >>>> "flex-basis", **when computed flex-basis is auto**. >>> >>> Why not just make it always pull from 'flex-basis'? I think having it >>> pull from 'width' might have been an accident. That would have the >>> same benefits you cite in the rest of your email. >> >> That would break the "flex: [positive-number]" use-case, I think. > > Ah, that makes sense. Sure, your suggested change sounds good to me > then. I'll discuss it with fantasai tomorrow and decide on it on the > call Wednesday. All right, fantasai and I have discussed it and agree with you. I've edited it accordingly; we'll verify with the WG tomorrow morning on the call. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2014 15:16:46 UTC