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

Re: [css-flexbox] aspect ratio question

From: Christian Biesinger <cbiesinger@google.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 18:13:04 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPTJ0XGxDWgHLogRjJ+JFQypmHsZFQjsO30Q=41H3RRCEkUAvg@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 6:04 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> On 04/04/2016 05:10 PM, Christian Biesinger wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:52 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> We did clarify the wording on how unresolveable percentages fall
>>> into case B, to help make the percentage situation clearer:
>>>    https://hg.csswg.org/drafts/rev/342ac9d5c892
>>>
>>> Hopefully that helps. Let us know if that works, or if we can
>>> do anything else to make this clearer.
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the update, that helps. Two thoughts:
>> - Instead of ['flex-basis' becomes ''content''.], maybe say [the used
>> value for 'flex-basis' is "content".]?
>
>
> Done.

Thanks! Though I don't see the commit for that yet?

I noticed that in the flex shorthand some of the flex-basis
description is duplicated (auto becoming content), maybe it would be
better to instead just point readers to the longhand. Maybe that
doesn't matter.

>> - To clarify, in https://drafts.csswg.org/css-flexbox/#algo-main-item
>> "or depends on its available size" is meant to catch min-content et
>> al? (by the way, what about fill-available, is that definite?)
>
>
> No, min-content et al. are intrinsic sizes and don't depend on the
> available size. fill-available and fit-content depend on the available
> size.

Oh right. Thanks. (Can I request to change "available space" to
"available size" in step E for consistency?)

Thanks,
-Christian
Received on Monday, 4 April 2016 22:13:52 UTC

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