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

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

From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 20:10:09 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>, Tony Chang <tc@google.com>, Ojan Vafai <ojan@google.com>, Phil Cupp <pcupp@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <D51C9E849DDD0D4EA38C2E539856928412D86B3D@TK5EX14MBXC218.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Definitely Yay. 

Including <preferred-size> in the property is technically redundant with width/height, but I know you feel strongly about it being there. We can discuss it separately and I am willing to live with what you propose.

I don’t think this change has any effect on grid. This change is scoping definition of flex to flexbox-only use and removing side effects on non-flexbox. Use of flex unit in grid never had that problem. Is that what you are asking WRT grid?

-----Original Message-----
From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 3:04 PM
To: Alex Mogilevsky
Cc: www-style@w3.org list; Tony Chang; Ojan Vafai
Subject: Re: [css3-flexbox] remove flex() function

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 Saturday, 17 December 2011 20:10:41 GMT

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