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

RE: [css3-flexbox] flex-grow initial value should be 0px

From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 17:26:53 +0000
To: Morten Stenshorne <mstensho@opera.com>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2C86A15F63CD734EB1D846A0BA4E0FC823CB0D2D@CH1PRD0310MB381.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
 From: Morten Stenshorne [mailto:mstensho@opera.com] 
 Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 1:06 AM
 As an implementor, I have no strong opinions (they are obviously equally 
 easy to implement), but apart from that, I must say I like things that are 
 clear and stupid, and at least not smarter than me. :)

Exactly what I feel as an author. I prefer consistent over convenient too.

 Another issue being discussed in this thread, regarding the case where only 
 one <number> being supplied in the 'flex' property: I prefer that it apply 
 to both growing and shrinking, FWIW.

Now that "0 1 auto" has been voted in and special case for "flex:0" dismissed (reasonable, considering the new default), I think there is still a way to make the whole thing at least somewhat sensible:

	1) initial: "flex:0 1 auto"
		("flex-basis:auto; flex-grow:0; flex-shrink:1;")

	2) defaults in flex shortcut match initial values:
		"flex:auto" == "flex:0 1 auto"
		"flex:1" == "flex:1 1 auto"	   
		"flex:0" == "flex:0 1 auto"	   
		"flex:0 0" == "flex:0 0 auto"	   
		"flex:1 0" == "flex:1 0 auto"	   
		"flex:100px" == "flex:0 1 100px"		
		"flex:0px" == "flex:0px"

Yes, "relative flex" is a little easier to get:

	.flex0 { flex:0 }	
	.flex1 { flex:1 }

While for "absolute flex" you have to say you want to drop flex-basis to 0:

	.flex0 { flex:0 }	
	.flex1 { flex:1 0px }

But that's ***OK*** -- it is still easy to set flex-basis to whatever you want it to be, but default of "0px" really makes no sense for inflexible items, which have been the source of endless issues.


Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2012 17:29:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:00 UTC