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

Re: [css3-flexbox] Trying out flex units again

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 14:01:16 -0800
Message-ID: <4D49D42C.7060509@inkedblade.net>
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.

Received on Wednesday, 2 February 2011 22:01:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:43 UTC