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, 25 March 2022 10:08:51 UTC