Why can you not set a minimum width of an element to 100%?

Hi there,

This is relatively minor, but I was curious as to the rationale behind the behavior I am seeing. If you have an element, you can choose to make it “fixed-width” or not. If the element is not fixed-width, two more options become available: “Minimum width (% of current width)” and “Apply a max width when the page is stretched”. This is useful for designing responsive sites, as it essentially serves as the upper and lower bound of an element’s resizing.

However, assume you have an element that you ONLY want to increase in size. If the page gets smaller, you want it to stay the same. If you try to set the “Minimum width” field to 100, it won’t let you. The highest you can set it is 99%.

Interestingly enough, it seems that such a restriction doesn’t apply to the “maximum width” field. Not only can you set the maximum width to 100%, you can actually set it to values less than 100% as well, which would mean that the element’s maximum width is less than its predetermined width.

Given that this seems like a semi-common use case, why is there a cap of 99% on the minimum width? Is this a bug, or is there some programmatic reason?

2 Likes

Bumping this topic -

@eve @emmanuel any input would be appreciated here! :slight_smile:

I’d like to set the minimum width to 100% too in my app. Can this be enabled @eve ?

I’d like to bump up this question as well. While designing pages to be mobile-ready, I am trying to place elements in groups within a larger parent group (such as a column). The elements I would like to set to 100%, while the parent group to which they belong should shrink/grow responsively with the page. 99% is close enough, but just curious why not 100%?