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

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 14:26:54 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDoGeu0D2FmuTmqoTsnsL1uAB+E9f1tBohp4QyO0PNhNQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com> wrote:
> 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.

Ugh, you're right.  That's why I was only 95% sure. >_<

Received on Tuesday, 3 March 2015 22:27:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:52 UTC