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

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com> wrote:
> On 03/02/2015 04:16 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> 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).
>
> Tab -- I think you're mistaken on this.
>
> A definite flex basis (50px in this case) does *not influence*
> "min-width:auto".  At least, I don't see anything about that in the spec.
>
> (note: if it *were* considered, then "flex: 1" (i.e. flex: 1 0 0%) would
> lose its magic min-size-clamping behavior, which would be bad.)
>
> So I think what Philip said is correct -- this image would indeed end up
> at 300px (despite flex: 0 0 50px).
>
> (We might just need to solve this with web-author education/outreach...
> The unexpected result makes more sense if you keep in mind that
> flex-basis is *just the starting-point* for flexing, and that
> min/max-size properties reign supreme, and that min-size defaults to
> intrinsic width.)

I literally checked in the fix for that yesterday, it's not showing up
in the spec for some reason.  I'll check this out.

(Right now the spec only pays attention if 'width' is definite and
"flex-basis:auto".  I'm 95% certain this was an oversight, and having
a definite 'flex-basis' should have the same effect. My commit that's
not showing up added that, and fixed the other condition to talk about
"flex-basis:content" instead.)

~TJ

Received on Tuesday, 3 March 2015 17:26:23 UTC