- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 18:10:05 -0400
- To: Christian Biesinger <cbiesinger@google.com>
- Cc: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 04/04/2016 05:58 PM, Christian Biesinger wrote: > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 5:44 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: >> >> The definition in CSS Sizing *does* cover it: >> >> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-sizing-3/#definite >> # A size that can be determined without measuring content; >> # that is, a <length>, a size of the initial containing block, >> # or a <percentage> or other formula (such the “fill-available” >> # sizing of non-replaced blocks [CSS21]) that is resolved solely >> # against definite sizes. >> >> If the flex basis is definite, and the item is inflexible, then >> the item's flexed flexed size is also definite. > > I get that for each individual case this can eventually be deduced > from the definition but it really seems like such a generic definition > seems to make it harder for implementors and thus for > interoperability, as compared to an exhaustive list. We think it's better to have a generic definition, because trying to make an exhaustive list is much more likely to fail. ~fantasai
Received on Monday, 4 April 2016 22:10:39 UTC