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

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

From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 03:56:52 +0000
To: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
CC: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Tony Chang <tony@chromium.org>, "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D51C9E849DDD0D4EA38C2E539856928412DCA05F@TK5EX14MBXC214.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
 From: ojan@google.com [mailto:ojan@google.com] On Behalf Of Ojan Vafai
 Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 7:27 PM
 To: Alex Mogilevsky
 Cc: Tab Atkins Jr.; Tony Chang; www-style@w3.org list
 Subject: Re: [css3-flexbox] remove flex() function

 Nay from me. I don't think it's the end of the world if we make this change, but I find the new
 flexbox much easier to make sense of largely because the values you set are width and height.
 It's not great that we don't have a concept of a logical width for when you want to switch
 between row and column, but in practice you'll hit that use-case writing flexbox tests far more
 often than you'll hit in with real-world use-cases.

 I acknowledge that there are some use-cases better met by a flex property, but I don't think it's
 worth the loss in clarity of just setting width/height directly.

 Ojan
Lack of logical width is just one problem. There are more issues with "flex()" (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Nov/0729.html), and biggest issue for me that it if applied to 'width' and 'height' it is always valid and must make sense when not in flexbox. And it is just not the way it is done elsewhere in CSS, and the concept doesn't seem unique enough to justify a unique solution.
Received on Thursday, 5 January 2012 04:15:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:48 GMT