docs(css): remove stale flex-basis 0% vs 0 warning on flex page - #44963
Merged
Conversation
CSSWG resolved to keep omitted flex-basis at 0% for compat (fixes mdn#44961)
github-actions
Bot
added
Content:CSS
estelle
approved these changes
Jul 30, 2026
estelle
left a comment
estelle
left a comment
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks! 🎉
just one suggestion.
Co-authored-by: Estelle Weyl <estelle@openwebdocs.org>
Contributor
Author
Done |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
Removes outdated warning on the
flexshorthand page about browsers usingflex-basis: 0%while the spec said0. Updates the related shorthand-expansion prose to0%throughout.Motivation
CSSWG resolved (2026-07-29 meeting) to switch the omitted
flex-basisvalue back to0%for compat: https://www.w3.org/2026/07/29-css-minutes.html#eb5f. Spec and browsers now agree, so the discrepancy note is no longer accurate.Additional details
Related issues and pull requests
Fixes #44961