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

Re: [CSS3] Flexible Flow Module, proposal.

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 18:39:15 -0700
Message-ID: <49E297C3.9000405@terrainformatica.com>
To: Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com>
CC: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Zack Weinberg wrote:
> "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 5:14 AM, Tab Atkins Jr.
>> I think the biggest limitation is not
>> being able to set width to "intrinsic width plus flex". The
>> limitations can probably be fixed, although the fixes might add
>> complexity or ugliness.
> 
> What about something like "width: calc(100px + 1fl)" or 
> "width: calc(100% + 1fl)" ?  I'm not sure exactly what you
> mean by "intrinsic width plus flex"; I'm going by analogy with
> the fill[l[l]] units in TeX; but this seems natural enough.

How is

   width: calc(100px + 1fl);

different from

   width: 1fl;
   min-width: 100px;

> 
> (very much -1 on "*" as unit specifier btw - let's not make the core
> lexical syntax any worse than it already is please)

I do not see how use of '*' makes syntax worse. What exactly is causing 
problems in your opinion?

About 'fl'. lowercase 'L' is not desirable in length units as it is 
close to the '1' in monospaced fonts. And 'f' belongs to hex digits -
may cause some inconsistencies in future.

In my opinion letters as units are ok only for SI units that are already 
well recognized internationally.

Conceptual things are better to be presented by iconic symbols like '*'.

I even would allow use of '*' without any number with the meaning that
'*' alone is exact equivalent of '1*'

Allowance of '-' in names in CSS created precedent that we need to deal 
with forever. I mean that handling of '*' is exactly the same as 
handling '-' as part of name token and as a minus sign.

Flex unit notation in the form 'N*' does not create
conflicts with existing CSS grammar.

> 
> zw
> 
> 


-- 
Andrew Fedoniouk.

http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Monday, 13 April 2009 01:39:59 GMT

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