- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 17:18:00 -0500
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 03/02/2015 07:00 PM, Daniel Holbert wrote: > On 03/02/2015 12:39 PM, Daniel Holbert wrote: >> On 02/24/2015 04:51 PM, Daniel Holbert wrote: >>> (1) This thread here: "should we make 'min-height:auto' taint the resulting flexed height on a vertical flex item & make it indefinite?" (I slightly lean towards 'yes' for perf reasons; Greg disagrees; I'm OK either way.) >>> Link to thread (hey, you're already here!): >>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Feb/0205.html >> >> Answer: no, min-height:auto doesn't make something indefinite. >> * Spec change needed: clarify section 9.8 (1st sentence at least) to mention that "definite sizes" *can* in fact depend (in part) on content measurements. > > Er, actually, Tab's email from later on today[1] seems to contradict this. (IIUC he's saying there that min-height:auto *should* make things indefinite.) > > So, this issue may still be a bit up in the air. To close off this issue, we ended up discussing this with everyone here and concluding on multi-pass layout: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Dec/0014.html ~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 3 December 2015 22:18:36 UTC