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

RE: [css3-*] Review of functional syntax in CSS

From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 02:56:44 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D51C9E849DDD0D4EA38C2E539856928412DFE6D6@TK5EX14MBXC218.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
± From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] 
± Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 6:02 PM
± 
± Fantasai and I spent the day reviewing the syntax of all the functions currently 
± defined in CSS, per ACTION-413.  We posted our results and recommendations on the wiki 
± at <http://wiki.csswg.org/ideas/functional-notation>.  They are reproduced below:

You don't mention 'flex()'. Are you two in agreement it doesn't need to be a function, or are you OK with it either way (if it lives, the syntax is good)?

Also, while you have fresh memories of this broad review, can you comment on two concerns I had with flex():

	1) Are there precedents for functions that are not always applicable where they are defined (such as "width:flex()" when not in flexbox)?
	2) Are there other places where use of a function changes defaults (such as "width:flex(1)" implies "width:0" instead of "width:auto")?


I am not starting another discussion on flex() here, we'll have it at F2F, I am just interested if we have principles or precedents to compare...

Alex
Received on Friday, 20 January 2012 02:57:23 GMT

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