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

Re: Flexbox Draft, with pictures!

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 23:08:21 -0700
Cc: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C72842A9-A0AF-4328-BF93-8F9BF7B207D8@gmail.com>
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>

On May 27, 2010, at 10:44 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

>> However, I admit to mixing up the two models in my mind a bit. And regardlessly Dave did not want to have to do a calc(fit-to-content + 1fl) in order to simulate additive flex by using absolute flex units. The above would not go that far by itself, because it does not distribute the _leftover_ space (or lack thereof using negative flex), it only distributes the total space (I think I understand this right now; it's all starting to sink in more and more).
> 
> It's much easier, I think if you don't try to think of absolute and
> additive flex as being different; they're really not.  My distribution
> algorithm, which I believe captures the correct behavior, doesn't
> distinguish between the two.  Here's how it works, generally:

Yeah, I think we are saying the same thing. I think your flex units can do what has been called additive flex, if you don't mind a little calc() here and there, to add the flex to whatever width you prefer, whether it is 0 (where calc() isn't actually required), fit-content, 50px, or whatever.
Received on Friday, 28 May 2010 06:08:57 GMT

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