• From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
• Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 18:23:52 -0700
• To: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
• Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDBPYdt2+EH2U6+5AfzVOvPQxoO=+OrzQEst_nKwC7eGw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com> wrote:
> On 08/07/2014 04:19 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> Rather, I think it should be expanded to "a flex-basis of 'main-size',
>> or an indefinite flex-basis".  Right?  There are more values than just
>> "auto" that are indefinite.
>
> Hmm, good point.
>
> Though, we already *know* that we have an indefinite flex basis, given
> that we're evaluating this part of the algorithm. (If we had a definite
> flex basis, we'd have gotten to (A) and stopped ("If the item has a
> definite flex basis, that’s the flex base size."))
>
> So maybe the second bullet-point about "a flex basis of 'main-size'"
> should just be removed?

I *think* we actually intend it to only happen when the main size is
actually "auto"; this is standard behavior for handling things with
aspect ratios.

(Note for readers at home, the quoted text actually means to say "a
used flex basis of 'auto'"; the typo was caught in a different
thread.)

~TJ

Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2014 01:24:39 UTC