- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 10:05:36 -0700
- To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- Cc: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com> wrote: > I think a stronger argument for flex units would be making some future > modules less hypothetical by at least having a sketch design for them. In > particular, we know that every grid layout (e.g. XUL, XAML or tables) uses > some sort of proportional units. Addition of a new kind of grid to CSS seems > inevitable, it would be very interesting to see how the flex units as they > are being defined would look there. I have some ideas here, will try to put > something together soon. That would be very interesting to see! > Actually eliminating box-align or box-pack – I don’t think that’s necessary. > These are intuitive and don’t complicate implementation, even if the same > can be done in a different way. But how does it work with flex units? pack/align are top-down layout strategies, while flex units are bottom-up. The two are in conflict by default, unless you specify pack/align in terms of setting default values for some flexible lengths. That's not going to be easy, though, since the default values for margin and padding are 0, not 'auto' - that seems inconsistent with magic behavior based on pack/align. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 1 June 2010 17:06:33 UTC