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

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 07:53:19 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTim62sLA0gXkf-pjRYexqWUCvTGVVo2_4LuZXIdg@mail.gmail.com>
To: robert@ocallahan.org
Cc: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, Adam Del Vecchio <adam.delvecchio@go-techo.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
> 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.

Actually, it's unnecessary to do that sort of simplified collapsing.
We can do genuine collapsing like you describe above without making
anything any more complex.

max(10px, 1fl) is equivalent to a 1fl with a min of 10px, which is a
case we already have to handle for width/height, so it doesn't make
the computation any more difficult.  The only tricky part is wording
the explanation of how to collapse in a clear way, but that's
solveable.

Next topic: calc(1fl - 30px).  Wtf?

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2010 15:00:18 GMT

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