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

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

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 22:26:11 -0700
Message-ID: <6252371EDBBB4706B90FE47ABD9E7ACD@terra3>
To: <robert@ocallahan.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: "Alex Mogilevsky" <alexmog@microsoft.com>, "Adam Del Vecchio" <adam.delvecchio@go-techo.com>, <www-style@w3.org>
By definition: calc() is getting computed when percentage is resolved so before computation of any flexes. 
Moreover: computation of the calc() is pre-condition (or input) of the flex algorithm. 
So calc(20px+2fl) looks very strange.

Consider this:

#sample 
{
   min-width: calc(10px + 50%);
   width: calc(20px+2fl); 
}

These two calc()s work at different moments of time as
'width' computation require min-width to be known for all children
of a container.

Technically this is still achievable by internally splitting calc() on just
calc() and flex-calc() but I do not recall anyone asking such feature 
in 4 years of using Absolute Flexes. 
Do you have examples where such non-trivial flex function is required?

-- 
Andrew Fedoniouk

http://terrainformatica.com






From: Robert O'Callahan 
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 8:15 PM
To: Tab Atkins Jr. 
Cc: Alex Mogilevsky ; Adam Del Vecchio ; www-style@w3.org 
Subject: Re: Fw: RE: [css-flexbox] Summary of planned changes to Flexbox Module


On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

  On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:

  > 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.


  A change to which spec?


The flexbox spec. My point is that calc(20px + 1fl) collapsed with calc(10px + 2fl) is not the same as calc(20px + 2fl) in general. It evaluates to 10px + 1fl + max(10px, 1fl).

But I think we can get away with genuinely collapsing calc(20px + 1fl) with calc(10px + 2fl). Probably.

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 05:26:42 GMT

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