- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 22:14:53 -0700
- To: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On May 25, 2010, at 6:12 PM, David Hyatt wrote:
> What about supporting child spacing via the border-spacing property and allowing flex on it?
>
> hbox { display:flex; border-spacing: 1fl 0; }
I like it.
>> (6) In the current spec if I say <img style="box-flex:1">, the image will not be able to shrink below its minimum intrinsic width. How do I do that with calc? <img style="width: 1fl; min-width: min-intrinsic"> seems pretty nasty for a behavior that should arguably be the default. I suppose the counterargument is that <iframe style="width:0; box-flex:1"> is more wordy than <iframe style="width:1fl"> though. If the latter is going to be the more common use case, then forcing min-width and max-width additions to clamp flexing to min-intrinsic and max-intrinsic sizes might be ok.
>>
>> I don't think that's true. An img's minimum width is still 0 by
>> default, and so it *should* be able to shrink all the way down to 0.
>>
>
> Regardless, I think additive flexing vs. replacement flexing is a key distinction here, and it would be good to make both easy to specify. Having to do width: calc(fit-to-content + 1fl) just to do the former seems gross.
Why not this:
'width:1fl; min-width: fit-to-content;'
That, at least, is easy to understand. If you didn't set min-width, the width before extra (or missing) space is distributed would be the same as 'fit-to-content'.
If the 1fl wide box contained up to several lines of text or as little as a single word, then you might want the opposite situation, in which it is flexible up to a point, but should not get super-wide in order to try to fit the intrinsic width. So for that, you could have something like this:
'width:1fl; max-width: 15em;'
...so that after it becomes 15em wide, any extra space is divided among the other flexers.
Received on Wednesday, 26 May 2010 05:16:31 UTC