- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 9 May 2010 09:46:20 -0700
- To: robert@ocallahan.org
- Cc: Adam Del Vecchio <adam.delvecchio@go-techo.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 1:56 AM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: > Those changes sound quite good to me. > > On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> I feel pretty strongly that this sort of change is worth breaking the >> current experimental implementations in Gecko and Webkit. > > To be honest, we probably want to rewrite our implementation anyway, or > rather do a new implementation of the new spec alongside our legacy XUL box > layout. However, it would be nice to at least be able to map existing > flexbox functionality cleanly into the new model. It seems like that will be > possible. Yay, cool. Very glad to hear that. > Hmm, will your flexunits proposal allow authors to set an absolute preferred > width and a flex width on the same element? You can still set min/max-width. Does that address your needs? Using flex units means changing from the additive flex model that Flexbox currently describes to an absolute flex model. ~TJ
Received on Sunday, 9 May 2010 16:47:14 UTC