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

Re: [css3-flexbox] clarify the syntax ambiguity around unitless zero in 'flex' shorthand

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:12:04 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDmr9TgfL0Tmu757sKcjxDHsaL12tW86w21ns3GRk4YMA@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: "Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu" <kanghaol@oupeng.com>, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>, WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 2:30 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> On 09/11/2012 08:51 PM, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu wrote:
>>
>>
>>    | If not omitted, a zero<'flex-basis'>  component must be either
>>    | specified with a unit or preceded by both flex ratios. Otherwise the
>>    | user agent must interpret it as one of the flex ratios.
>>
>> should be enough. (But it all depends on what "component" means...
>> *shrug*)
>
>
> Ok, so I'm debating between that wording and the following:
>
>   | A unitless zero that is not already preceded by two flex factors
>   | is interpreted as a flex factor.
>   | To avoid misinterpretation or invalid declarations,
>   | authors must specify such lengths with a unit or precede them by both
>   | flex ratios.

I'd put an explicit "must" in the first sentence, but otherwise I like this.

~TJ
Received on Friday, 14 September 2012 22:12:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:00 GMT