- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 22:00:37 -0500
- To: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 02/09/2015 04:43 PM, Daniel Holbert wrote: > 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. Here's the thread: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Jul/0009.html The resolution was B. Let me know if that's satisfactory or if we still have an issue here. ~fantasai
Received on Saturday, 21 February 2015 03:01:08 UTC