- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 16:16:32 -0800
- To: Philip Walton <philip@philipwalton.com>
- Cc: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Greg Whitworth <gwhit@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Philip Walton <philip@philipwalton.com> wrote: > 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. That doesn't happen. The rules for min-width:auto specifically take into account if the item has a definite flex-basis (or it has flex-basis:content and a definite width). As far as we can tell, the current spec gives the best of all worlds here - if you don't specify anything special, images won't shrink below their intrinsic size, but if you do specify an explicit size, they're allowed to shrink down to that. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 3 March 2015 00:17:19 UTC