- From: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 10:13:19 -0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 03/03/2015 09:25 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > 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. Looks like it made it in now. ("If the item’s computed flex-basis is definite"...) I don't agree with this change, though. > (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. I don't think it was an oversight -- the distinction is important. With your change (allowing definite values in "flex-basis" to influence resolved min-width:auto), this will allow shrinkage below the min-content width (and cause overflow) when authors specify e.g. "flex: 1", which would make "flex: 1" much more dangerous to use. As I recall, the whole idea of shorthands like "flex: 1" is that you can make your items grow equally from 0, with a guarantee that each item will be large enough to not have content overflowing. This change breaks that, and would likely cause backwards-compatibility headaches as a result.
Received on Tuesday, 3 March 2015 18:13:49 UTC