- From: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 13:43:00 -0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 07/01/2014 09:53 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > fantasai and I discussed this this morning. Based on that discussion, > and the telcon discussion we had last week, we agree with the > conclusions of this thread. Namely, percentage heights on children of > flex items should be resolveable if the item's 'flex-basis' is > definite; they resolve against the *flexed height* of the flex item > (not its flex-basis directly). [...] > > (There's still the issue of what happens when the item freezes due to > a min-height violation based on its min-content size, but that's a > more general issue than just Flexbox, and we've started a separate > thread on that.) Hi Tab, Do you know where this separate thread (which you mentioned having started, in the parenthetical here) ended up? I looked at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Jul/ and https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Jun/ , and I saw several threads about min-height/min-width, but it's not clear to me which one (if any) actually ended up considering the question of whether a "min-content"-clamped flex item should be considered as having a definite height, for the purpose of resolving percent heights on its children. Thanks, ~Daniel
Received on Monday, 9 February 2015 21:43:31 UTC