W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2016

Re: [css-flexbox] rationale for definite size conditions

From: Christian Biesinger <cbiesinger@google.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 18:04:47 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPTJ0XH_X11Zcd84ig1Zv+2i+1JpShFhNXtfN+nnwQBbichZGw@mail.gmail.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:02 UTC