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

Re: [css3-layout] shorthand for slot construction

From: Stephen Hay <haymail@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:21:52 +0200
Message-ID: <f29fb5880910180821l1523b657y1603badc122592be@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

> What's the *purpose* of it, though?  The only reason to ever use a
> string like in your first example is if you actually *need* that level
> of detail with things being placed all over the page with odd offsets
> from each other.  There's no reason to do so if all you want is to
> express sizing.
> #example {
>  display: "a.b"
>           "ccc"
>           10* * *;

Let's say for the sake of argument that you need that level of detail
;) The idea comes from css3-grid, where e.g.:

body { grid-columns: * * (0.5in * *)[2];

> ...oh.  Wait.  ::looks up the current draft::  Full support for flex
> units doesn't appear to exist in the current draft for whatever
> reason.
> Now, in this particular instance, since all of the lengths are flexes,
> you can replace them with %s (use "83.3% 8.3% 8.3%").  But that's not
> possible if one of the columns (often the spacer column in your
> example) is an absolute length.  (Well, you could use relatively
> complex calc() hacking, like "calc((100% - 2em) * 10 / 11)", but let's
> not be silly.)

We'd rather keep using floats, I suspect.

> So I think this problem really boils down to just "Template Layout
> needs to support proper flex units".

Would that mean incorporating more of flexbox module into template
layout? I assume the idea is to end up with one general layout module?

Received on Sunday, 18 October 2009 15:22:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:29 UTC