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

Re: [css3-flexbox] remove flex() function

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:04:17 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDA-8WE+zBBViRyuGNrsCkSAUJ5HBFTaY9JaG74wi1L-TQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>, Tony Chang <tc@google.com>, Ojan Vafai <ojan@google.com>
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com> wrote:
> ± From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com]
> ± I agree that flex() has some less-than-ideal properties.  In particular, I'm not
> ± wild about it being usable outside of flexboxes, and I don't like that it has to
> ± be specified as a physical dimension when it only applies to the flexbox's main
> ± size, which maps to a physical dimension based on other properties.
>
> Exactly.
>
> ± We can possibly fix this in other ways, if it's really desirable.  For example,
> ± we could have a 'flex' property that takes the same syntax as the flex()
> ± function and which applies *instead of* width/height (whichever is appropriate).
> ± This would solve both of the problems I complained about above, and a few more
> ± of your issues.  It could also be turned into a shorthand later (or now),
> ± allowing independent cascading of the different pieces.
>
> I like the idea 'flex' property much more than 'flex' function. That IMO is totally "CSS way".
>
>        flex: [ <pos-flex> <neg-flex>? ]? || <preferred-size>?
[snip bit about sub-properties]

So, yay/nay on this?  I'm okay with it, but I'm also okay with the
status quo.  Tony, Ojan, thoughts?

Alex, if this is done, how do you expect it to affect Grid, which uses
flex units in 'grid-rows/columns'?

~TJ
Received on Friday, 16 December 2011 23:05:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:47 GMT