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

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

From: Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 17:46:00 -0700
To: robert@ocallahan.org
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, Adam Del Vecchio <adam.delvecchio@go-techo.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100511174600.7b743861@moxana.local>
"Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:

> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Robert O'Callahan
> <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote:
> 
> > 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
> >
> 
> Well, assuming we don't allow negative flex values. I certainly hope
> that's true!

TeX allows infinitely stretchable negative glue (more or less equivalent
to negative flex) and it is quite useful under some circumstances,
although its box model is different enough that I won't claim it'd
definitely be useful in CSS.

Speaking of glue, though, I'm pretty sure people *would* find use for a
CSS equivalent of "2pt plus4pt minus1pt" (i.e. "try to make this 2pt
wide, but you can stretch it up to 6pt or squash it down to 1pt if that
makes things fit better").

And I kinda think we should just bite the bullet and require a linear
constraint solver.

zw
Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2010 00:46:38 GMT

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