- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 08:29:06 +0100
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- CC: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Le 13/01/11 06:44, Sylvain Galineau a écrit : > Well, like Daniel, I thought that specifying box-flex meant I didn't have to set width. In my case at least, what may have contributed to this were the many super-simple examples and testcases which mostly involve boxes with very little or no content - very commonly the "1", "2", "3" flex sample seen in almost every blog post on the topic [1] - where you don't run into this situation. > > I wouldn't be surprised if others end up assuming the same i.e. setting box-flex 2, 1, 1 does not require setting widths to 50%, 25%, 25%. And their reaction to being told they have to will often be "well, what's the point then ?" Exactly. I can find at least ten web pages demo'ing flexbox with <div class="box">1</div> and showing three horiz boxes same height with 1/2 1/4 1/4 widths. The first thing all authors will try is replacing "1" by "lorem ipsum blabla" and that will fail... Über-techies will say it's normal it fails. All the others will ask why. That's what we have to fix. And I also say "width: 0" is not understandable to specify the desired behaviour here. </Daniel>
Received on Thursday, 13 January 2011 07:29:41 UTC