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

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 13:42:13 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinNvAFpOYq32fuPgsB48SFEYLS7SDbD4PK9XSSP@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On May 28, 2010, at 11:12 AM, Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
>> Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> No, I agree. But that's why I mentioned 'margin: calc(1fl + 2px)',
>>> which would be a 2px hard lower boundary, supposing that '1fl' might
>>> typically be much more than that, but capping it at 2px in case it
>>> wasn't.
>>
>> Wait, what?  Weren't you just arguing for '1fl' to be allowed to be
>> negative?
>
> Yes, but margin can't be less than zero. I guess I was thinking margin would
> hit zero, not go any lower, and then the 2px would be added back, but you're
> right, that doesn't really make mathmatical sense.

Margin can be less than zero.

~TJ
Received on Friday, 28 May 2010 20:43:08 GMT

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