W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2015

Re: [css-flexbox] Should "max-width" influence the resolved flex base size? (from default "flex-basis:auto;width:auto")

From: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 21:37:17 -0800
Message-ID: <54E4250D.4090901@mozilla.com>
To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 02/17/2015 08:28 PM, Daniel Holbert wrote:
> I also recall an earlier version of the spec being more explicit about
> the min/max main size properties being *ignored* until the algorithm
> *explicitly* considers them. (This is why Gecko does what it does.) I
> wonder if that language was lost accidentally?

I found the old language I was thinking of. The 20120322 WD section 9 says:
  # Do not apply min/max-width/height constraints to
  # the preferred size of flexible lengths - those
  # constraints are handled elsewhere in this algorithm,
  # and doing so will produce incorrect results.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-css3-flexbox-20120322/#layout-algorithm

This explicit "Do not apply min/max" language was removed in this cset:
  https://hg.csswg.org/drafts/rev/d2282075d2f2

But despite the language-removal, this commit's commit-message actually
expressed an intent to keep the "flex base size" as an unclamped thing
-- the commit message was:
  # Define hypothetical size as the clamped size;
  # call the unclamped size the 'flex base size',
  # since it's basically the used flex basis.

So -- fantasai/Tab, am I correct in inferring that min/max main-size
properties *should be ignored* (treated as their initial values) when
resolving the "flex base size"? (And if so, can we make this more
explicit in the spec?)

Thanks,
~Daniel
Received on Wednesday, 18 February 2015 05:37:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:52:01 UTC