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

Re: [css-flexbox] min-height on flex items that have an intrinsic aspect ratio

From: Philip Walton <philip@philipwalton.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 19:13:43 -0800
Message-ID: <CAGRhNhUB5KzPa2qk12bhJ_PLMW9o3-vAtByKXidP6HOtLU1Dkg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Greg Whitworth <gwhit@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
wrote:
>
> I prefer the pre-August behavior on this point, because min-content sizes
> aren't really a useful lower-bound for flex items with aspect ratios. These
> flex items *can* shrink (honoring their intrinsic aspect ratio) below their
> min-content size, without overflowing.
>

This makes a lot of sense to me, and I think the example is quite
compelling. Given an <img> flex item whose only CSS declaration is `flex: 0
0 50px`, it seems quite strange (and unexpected) to have its rendered size
be 300px wide/tall.
Received on Thursday, 26 February 2015 03:14:10 UTC

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