- From: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 13:56:45 -0700
- To: Christian Biesinger <cbiesinger@google.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 03/31/2016 01:13 PM, Christian Biesinger wrote: > I would argue that *for flex items*, width: auto should not be > considered definite because they shrink to fit. That is orthogonal to my original question. The flexbox spec lays out one case where flex items should be considered definite even with "width:auto" > E.g. in https://drafts.csswg.org/css-flexbox/#algo-main-item (3.B), I > don't think a column flexbox should consider a width:auto in a flex > item to be considered definite for the purpose of aspect ratio > calculations. What does the CSSWG think? (Per our off-list discussion, I think you & I agree that "width:auto" on a flex item would be considered definite in this scenario, if the flex item is stretched & if the flex container has a definite cross size, per point (1) of https://drafts.csswg.org/css-flexbox-1/#definite This is orthogonal to the topic of this thread, though.)
Received on Thursday, 31 March 2016 20:57:15 UTC