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 19:03:53 -0500
Cc: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-id: <87E0C16C-9929-4F9E-AFB3-12B71B87C779@apple.com>
To: Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com>
On Apr 12, 2009, at 6:43 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:

> Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com> wrote:
>>
>> Flex units cannot be used in the calc() by its definition:
>> "The expression within the parethesis is computed at the same time as
>> 'em' lengths are computed"[1]. Flex computation happens after calc()
>> is evaluated.
>
> I'd rather change that (perhaps only in this one special case) than
> make up some new syntax.
>
> zw
>

Agreed.

The only issue I have with using calc() is that in the XUL box model  
this intrinsic + flex behavior is the default.  We need to think  
carefully about what behavior should be the default.  I think I'm fine  
with flex units causing flex without regard for preferred sizes and  
having to use calc() to get the old XUL behavior, but it might be good  
to study some XUL files to see how onerous this would actually be for  
authors.  I know it is very common in XUL for authors to write:

width: 0; box-flex: 1;

in order to specifically work around the XUL default behavior.  That  
tells me that the default in XUL may perhaps not be the right behavior  
(or at the very least that the other behavior is also very popular).

dave
(hyatt@apple.com)
Received on Monday, 13 April 2009 00:04:34 GMT

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