- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:15:07 -0700
- To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tab Atkins Jr.
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 2:03 PM
>>
>> Currently, the Grid draft uses the 'fr' unit to denote an absolute-flex
>> unit. I previously just had a 'fl' unit in the Flexbox draft that did the
>> same thing. Do we want to standardize on one of these ('fr' is fine with
>> me), and then use the approach I've quoted, which is optimized for
>> relative flex?
>
> Are you suggesting using 'fr' as "absolute flex" (or "fraction", which is consistent with other use) and 'fl' for "relative flex" (as in original 'box-flex' property)? I think it was proposed before and rejected but somehow today it sounds sensible......
Nah, using 'fr' (or 'fl', whatever) for absolute flex and
'flex(<pref>,<pos-flex>,<neg-flex>)' for relative flex.
~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2011 21:15:56 UTC