W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2010

Re: Fw: RE: [css-flexbox] Summary of planned changes to Flexbox Module

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 12:12:55 +1200
Message-ID: <AANLkTimQ7ZcuKhkOiD9MmB_cMO4vx3r8Bw_2kPPn6Ktn@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, Adam Del Vecchio <adam.delvecchio@go-techo.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> Not necessarily.  Say two adjacent margins are calc(20px+1fl) and
> calc(10px+2fl).  I think we could get away with collapsing their
> pieces separately, so it's equivalent to a single margin with
> calc(20px+2fl).
>

That's actually a spec change. And you still have an equivalent problem when
you collapse 20px with 2fl, as it turns out. At least some set of cases
reduce to the problem of solving for F an equation of the form
   sum_over_i( max(m_i, k_i F) ) = N
It's piecewise-linear, but increasing and continuous in F so it's not that
hard. It just adds to the complexity.

But actually, it seems to me the equations you'll have to solve aren't any
more complex than you get when you introduce min-width and max-width. So
maybe this is a non-issue. I'd definitely like to see at least pseudocode
for the flex assignment algorithm though.

Rob
-- 
"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah
53:5-6]
Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2010 00:13:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:27 GMT