W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2012

Re: [css3-flexbox] What the flex is basis?

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 08:25:45 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDsDdPKsw_4N1+NXt7XjhBX3Lv_Z2=tX07UX5B=5nnzOQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
(You're aware that the LC period has been over for a month, right?
The spec is in CR now, and design-level changes will be automatically
rejected.  If you had any comments on the overall design of the spec,
you had well over a year to make them while it was in active
development.)

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:02 AM, Andrew Fedoniouk
<news@terrainformatica.com> wrote:
> If we would have real flex length units [1] then this
>
> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-flexbox/images/rel-vs-abs-flex.svg
>
> can be defined simply as:
>
> first case:
>
>   span { width:1*; min-width:max-content; }
>   span:last-child { width:2*;  }
>
> and second case:
>
>   span { padding:1*; min-width:max-content; }
>   span:last-child { padding:2*;  }
>
> without that mix of pathetic 'basis', 'grow' and
> its antonym 'shrink'.
>
> [1] http://www.terrainformatica.com/w3/flex-layout/flex-layout.htm

This was discussed extensively on the list and in the f2f meetings,
and won't be revisited.  We have strong experimental evidence that
authors find the model of flexing always starting from width/height
unintuitive, and so we changed the model so that you can easily flex
from a starting value of 0.

Forcing the flexing to start from the min-size is similarly
unintuitive.  That's a constraint, not a declaration of intent.  The
fact that a particular element shouldn't be made smaller than 100px
doesn't mean you want it to start flexing from 100px, particularly if
the other items in the flexbox are starting from 0.

~TJ
Received on Friday, 3 August 2012 15:26:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:58 GMT