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

Re: [css3-flexbox] flex-basis initial value should be 0px

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 18:29:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCvoT6QHqV8C=8zW+Lwz4emOpngK_GJBCAvRRSqASC9Hw@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
(I'm hoping that this doesn't start a new thread.  For some reason
Ojan's message hasn't my inbox yet, an hour after it showed up in the
list archives.)

On May 21 2012, Ojan said:
> I think this was probably an oversight in the recent changes to the spec,
> but at some point, the default value of flex-basis changed from 0px to auto.
>
> "‘flex: <positive-number>’
> Equivalent to ‘flex: <positive-number> 1 0px’. This value makes the flex
> item flexible, and sets the flex basisto zero, resulting in an item that
> receives the specified proportion of the free space in the flex container.
> If all items in the flex container use this pattern, their sizes will be
> proportional to the specified flex ratio."
>
> That seems like the correct default behavior. Having auto as the preferred
> size is considerably slower and often not what the developer wants. It
> should not be the default value.
>
> "flex:auto == flex:1 1 auto" and "flex:none == flex: 0 0 auto" both seem
> fine to me as is, but the default value for flex should be "1 1 0px".

Before we added flex-grow/shrink/basis, the initial value for 'flex'
was "none", or "0 0 auto".  I suspect that's why gave flex-basis
'auto' as its initial value.

Now, though, everything flexes by default.  I have no real opinion on
whether "absolute" or "relative" flex is the better default behavior.

Anyone else have strong opinions either way?

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 01:30:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:54 GMT