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

Re: [flex-units] unit abbreviations and the flex()

From: Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 22:33:01 -0700
To: "Andrew Fedoniouk" <news@terrainformatica.com>
Cc: "W3C Emailing list for WWW Style" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100527223301.3b1a21ad@moxana.local>
"Andrew Fedoniouk" <news@terrainformatica.com> wrote:
> >> I do not see any problems with this, do you?
> >
> > You're proposing a change in the CSS2.1 generic syntax.  I don't
> > think that's worth doing just for the (arguable) additional
> > readability of '1*' over '1fl'.
> 
> Any new unit type will be a change of CSS2.1 generic syntax.
> E.g. 1pt is a LENGTH unit.  Adding either 1* or 1fl will require
> change of CSS2.1 generic syntax.

Nonsense.  <length> is not part of the generic syntax; adding new
<length> productions does not of itself require any change to the
generic syntax, as long as what you add is a possible <any>
production, which '1fl' is and '1*' isn't.

> If you really think that \hspace{10px plus 1fil}  makes real sense
> in CSS context then I think that flex() function that I've proposed
> is simple and predictable. So that expression will be written
> as flex( 10px, 1* ). No?

I don't get it.  Either you are saying flex(10px, 1*) is easier to
understand at a glance than calc(10px + 1fl), or else you are saying
that the latter would be harder to implement.  But both of those
assertions are ridiculous.

zw
Received on Friday, 28 May 2010 05:33:36 GMT

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