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

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

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 18:25:33 -0400
To: Christian Biesinger <cbiesinger@google.com>
Cc: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5702E9DD.50208@inkedblade.net>
On 04/04/2016 06:04 PM, Christian Biesinger wrote:
> 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?

Both being zero. Switched to "fully inflexibe" and added definition...

~fantasai
Received on Monday, 4 April 2016 22:26:05 UTC

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