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 19:40:58 -0700
Message-ID: <49E2A63A.9050001@terrainformatica.com>
To: Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com>
CC: robert@ocallahan.org, David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Zack Weinberg wrote:
> "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
>> Hacking calc() to allow mixing of flex and specified widths seems
>> problematic to me because of the time-of-evaluation issue. 
> 
> We could just specify that at em-unit-calculation-time, calc()
> reassociates as necessary to put its argument in a canonical form of
> <fixed> +/- <flex>, and then the <flex> gets processed at layout time.
> 
> Alternatively, borrowing even more from TeX:
> 
>   glue(size)
>   glue(size, plus)
>   glue(size, plus, minus)
> 
> where each of the three arguments can be a calc-expression, but flex
> units and non-flex units may not be combined within a single expression.
> 
> I'm not fond of the box-flex idea because it's not obvious which
> dimension, or even which *axis*, it applies to.  Keep it around for XUL
> back compat, sure, but not the recommended way forward.

Yes, I am with you here too.

> 
> As a side issue, what's the rationale for restricting flex units to
> some subset of the box dimension properties?  I would think it would be
> useful in any length property.
> 

Could you provide an example of other attributes where flexes will make
sense?

Flex units are defined for attributes that are competing for the space 
inside some box boundaries when there are more than one independent 
length value involved.


> zw
> 
> 


-- 
Andrew Fedoniouk.

http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Monday, 13 April 2009 02:41:33 GMT

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