W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2014

Re: [css-flexbox] min-width/height: min-content defaults for replaced items and overflow containers

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 15:29:10 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCRy5_N5BJZiet3j6Uw1=U28FJ+N_KWxKViiNDdhvFMOw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com> wrote:
> On 06/29/2014 09:44 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com> wrote:
>>> On 03/19/2014 12:23 PM, fantasai wrote:
>>>> The new definition for 'auto' is:
>>>>   # On a flex item whose overflow is not visible, this keyword
>>>>   # specifies as the minimum size the smaller of:
>>>>   #
>>>>   #  * the min-content size, or
>>>>   #  * the computed width/height, if that value is definite.
>>> I'm concerned about the second change described here -- the second
>>> bullet-point, which makes "min-width:auto" depend on the computed value
>>> of "width".
>> I don't want to reverse this behavior, but if it's too problematic for
>> min-width, perhaps we should just move this functionality to a new,
>> flexbox-specific property instead.
>> ~TJ
> I've got one idea for an alternative...
> So, I'm assuming the old min-width:auto behavior caused author confusion
> primarily **when flex-basis was auto**. (That would make us defer to
> "width", but we'd confusingly stop deferring to it when it fell below
> the min-content size, with the old min-width:auto behavior.)


> 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.

Received on Monday, 30 June 2014 22:29:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:43 UTC