W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2011

RE: [css3-flexbox] Best way to denote flexible lengths

From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 00:22:33 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D51C9E849DDD0D4EA38C2E539856928411F2CEB7@TK5EX14MBXC213.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
I don't like the idea of width/height taking space-separated lists. I would rather have a flex function.

Given a choice between flex(1,0,auto) with commas and fixed set of arguments and flex(auto 1 0) with space separated arbitrary order, I think I would clearly prefer any-order version...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 5:16 PM
> To: Alex Mogilevsky
> Cc: www-style list
> Subject: Re: [css3-flexbox] Best way to denote flexible lengths
> 
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
> > With some other properties we have space separated lists where arguments
> can go in an order. Is there a precedent in applying that to functional
> notation? Then flex(auto,2) could mean same as flex(2,auto). And
> flex(1)==flex(auto). It would seem consistent with other syntax where
> people don't have to remember argument order when arguments are strongly
> typed.
> 
> If we did do this, I'd probably want to omit the commas entirely, and just
> make it a function that takes space-separated arguments in any order.
> Radial gradients do this a little bit - the <position> is fairly loose in
> its ordering (inherited from background-position), and the size/shape
> argument can accept the two keywords in either order.
> 
> Alternately, scrap the flex() function entirely, and change the
> width/height properties to accept a <length> and up to two <fraction>s, so
> you can just write "width: 2fr" for some absolute flex, or "width: auto
> 1fr 1fr" for some relative flex that can both grow and shrink.  Is this
> acceptable for Grid?
> 
> ~TJ

Received on Thursday, 14 April 2011 00:23:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:39 GMT