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

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

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <andrew.fedoniouk@live.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 20:42:59 -0700
Message-ID: <BLU159-ds6D35C62D522F0F73FF5CDF8AC0@phx.gbl>
To: "Alex Mogilevsky" <alexmog@microsoft.com>, "Brad Kemper" <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>
"Negative flex" you say?  Interesting. I'd like to try that too ...

Seriously: such simple concept as flex (portion of free space) shall not be 
that complex. And it isn't.

Can we just focus on simple flex units for now? And postpone this 
nightmare(preferred,negative) for CSS4.
If someone will really ask for it?

-- 
Andrew Fedoniouk

http://terrainformatica.com




-----Original Message----- 
From: Alex Mogilevsky
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 12:25 AM
To: Brad Kemper ; Tab Atkins Jr.
Cc: www-style list
Subject: RE: [css3-flexbox] Best way to denote flexible lengths

Elsewhere I believe the order is not important if it is not ambiguous. Since 
we have to numbers they have to be in order - positive flex then negative 
flex if we want reasonable default.

Having good defaults is key here (just as it is with 'background' property)

flex(1) means (preferred=auto, positive-flex=1, negative-flex=0)
flex(auto) means (preferred=auto, positive-flex=1, negative-flex=0)
flex(0) means (preferred=auto, no flexibility)

if this is really the way to go, it should probably accept unitless zero 
length at certain priority (first or last... I think last)

-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Kemper [mailto:brad.kemper@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 11:15 PM
To: Tab Atkins Jr.
Cc: Alex Mogilevsky; www-style list
Subject: Re: [css3-flexbox] Best way to denote flexible lengths


On Apr 13, 2011, at 5:29 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com> 
> wrote:
>> 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...
>
> Okay, then I'll change the draft to accept the 'fr' unit and the
> 'flex()' function with space-separated any-order arguments.  Sound
> good?

I'm confused. 'flex(auto 1 0)' is the same as 'flex(auto 0 1)' or 'flex(1 
auto 0)'?
Received on Friday, 15 April 2011 03:43:29 GMT

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