- From: Christian Biesinger <cbiesinger@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 18:04:47 -0400
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 5:44 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > On 04/04/2016 05:23 PM, Daniel Holbert wrote: >> >> On 04/04/2016 01:57 PM, fantasai wrote: >>> >>> (Fwiw, we did clarify that if an item with a definite flex basis >>> is inflexible, it is considered definite. [1]) >>> [1] https://hg.csswg.org/drafts/rev/fbcbe170c119 >> >> >> Two concerns about this -- so, the new language here is: >> # Note: An inflexible item with a definite flex basis >> # is, by definition, definite. >> >> CONCERN #1: "definite" is a term that applies to lengths, not to items. >> So, the "item ... is ... definite" language doesn't make any sense here. >> This really wants to say that the item's main size is definite, I think? > > > Yes, good point. Fixed. Also, what does "inflexible" mean in this context? Both flex-grow and shrink being zero or do I have to also figure out which one applies to determine whether it is definite? -Christian
Received on Monday, 4 April 2016 22:05:34 UTC