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, -ChristianReceived 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