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

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

From: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 08:03:14 +0200
Message-ID: <A42A980EE5984AC8AB7BF70482ACEEEE@FREMY2>
To: "Andrew Fedoniouk" <news@terrainformatica.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: <robert@ocallahan.org>, "Alex Mogilevsky" <alexmog@microsoft.com>, "Adam Del Vecchio" <adam.delvecchio@go-techo.com>, <www-style@w3.org>
From: "Andrew Fedoniouk" <news@terrainformatica.com>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 8:41 AM
> To: "Andrew Fedoniouk" <news@terrainformatica.com>
> Cc: <robert@ocallahan.org>; "Alex Mogilevsky" <alexmog@microsoft.com>; 
> "Adam Del Vecchio" <adam.delvecchio@go-techo.com>; <www-style@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Fw: RE: [css-flexbox] Summary of planned changes to Flexbox 
> Module
>
>> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Andrew Fedoniouk
>> <news@terrainformatica.com> wrote:
>>>>> 1) you can use calc() in min-width by definition.
>>>>> 2) and you cannot use flexes in min/max-widths as they are
>>>>>  precondition for flex computation. Also by definition.
>>>>>
>>>>> Deducing this simple system of logic statements we are
>>>>> getting the fact that calc() cannot use flexes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Quod erat demonstrandum.
>>>>
>>>> Honestly?  Come on now, that's just silly.  Don't try to dress
>>>> something up as a logical proof unless you actually want to bring
>>>> rigor to the table.  There are a ton of hidden assumptions you're
>>>> bringing along that aren't necessarily valid.  For example, you're
>>>> assuming that if a particular calc() expression is allowed anywhere,
>>>> it must be allowed everywhere.
>>>
>>> Word "silly" has many meanings. What in particular does it mean here?
>>> That proof is logically correct one if to use current specs as a base.
>>
>> I explained why it was silly.  You are assuming things that are not
>> necessarily reasonable.  If you change some of those assumptions, you
>> get a different result.
>>
>> Formal logic should be left to the mathematicians.  They're the only
>> ones who can agree on their axioms enough to get useful work done.
>>
>
> That is refreshing. So formal logic cannot be used in CSS discussions.
> Is it sort of new CSS-WG spirit or just your personal opinion on the 
> subject ?

What Tab Atkins Jr is trying to say is that flexboxes could be allowed
inside calc. Your assumptions are not the only ones possibles. We
could, for example, decide that flex units are allowed everywhere but
computes to 0px when they are not supported (in min-width f.e.) 
Received on Thursday, 20 May 2010 06:03:48 GMT

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