- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 14:01:16 -0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 02/02/2011 01:10 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > > It's possible that flex() itself is too complex, though. Widths and > heights already have min/max constraints, so they only need preferred > sizes and the two flexibilities. I think my use-cases could get away > with just having margins/padding take a preferred size, a positive > flexibility (indicating it can grow, with no max), and optionally a > negative flexibility (indicating it can shrink, with no min). Would > it make you happier to track only 3 values per property rather than 5? > That would reduce the difference to 16 vs 34, and additionally > simplify the processing model somewhat. I think that makes sense. Remember also that we have general min(), max(), and calc() functions which can be used on margins and padding. ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 2 February 2011 22:01:54 UTC