W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2009

Re: [CSS3] Flexible Flow Module, proposal.

From: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 18:17:32 -0500
Cc: robert@ocallahan.org, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-id: <99619AA6-07D3-485E-9C37-D435F62413D2@apple.com>
To: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
On Apr 12, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:

> Robert O'Callahan wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com 
>>  <mailto:news@terrainformatica.com>> wrote:
>>    David Hyatt wrote:
>>        On Apr 12, 2009, at 5:19 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
>>            That is not what I was asking for.
>>            Suppose I have elements A and B with intrinsic widths  
>> 100px
>>            and 200px respectively. Suppose the container has width
>>            400px, and I want the extra space to be distributed  
>> equally
>>            to A and B, so they end up with widths 150px and 250px.  
>> Your
>>            proposal has no way to do this as far as I can tell, nor  
>> is
>>            it possible by setting min-widths or max-widths.
>>            This is actually the default behaviour for XUL boxes, so  
>> it
>>            seems important to me that any flex-box-like spec be  
>> able to
>>            do it.
>>        Yeah, I just brought this up in my last message as well.  The
>>        only way I can see to solve this for flex units is to actually
>>        specify both values, e.g.,
>>        width: (100px)1*
>>        or something like that....
>>    I am not sure I understand the problem.
>>    If you will define:
>>    #A { width:max-intrinsic; padding-left:1*; padding-right:1* }
>>    #B { width:max-intrinsic; padding-left:1*; padding-right:1* }
>>    than widths of *border* boxes will be set in the way you want.
>>    Is this the answer or I've missed something?
>> That does not allow the children of A and B to occupy the extra  
>> width. The extra width can only be white space.
>
> Ah, this.
>
> But why not to use
>
> #A { width:1*; }
> #B { width:2*; }
>
> if you just want to distribute their widths in 1:2 proportion?
>
> Or do you want weights to be dependent from intrinsic width of  
> elements?
>

Independent.  Yes.  That's right.

See Zack's message.   I think calc() could be a good solution to this  
problem.

dave
Received on Sunday, 12 April 2009 23:18:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 03:46:58 GMT