W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2013

Re: [css3-flexbox] ambiguity in flex shorthand?

From: Christian Biesinger <cbiesinger@chromium.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 09:05:45 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPTJ0XGEVn=F1EhQQc1m3qNEdVwCWHA_EnjgEjc4foQiTPy3Lw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
At the end of the section, the spec says "A unitless zero that is not
already preceded by two flex factors must be interpreted as a flex
factor. To avoid misinterpretation or invalid declarations, authors
must specify a zero <flex-basis> component with a unit or precede it
by two flex factors."

So it will be the first of your options.

-christian

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Daniel Glazman
<daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote:
> Section 7.1 [1] of the spec says the flex shorthand is defined as
> follows:
>
>  none | [ <'flex-grow'> <'flex-shrink'>? || <'flex-basis'> ]
>
> Some examples in section clearly show or deal with a unitless value of 0
> for 'flex-basis'. But a unitless value here can be ambiguous, what
> is the meaning of 'flex: 1 0' ?
>
> Is that
>
>    flex-grow: 1
>    flex-shrink: 0
>    flex-basis: 0 (default when omitted)
>
> or
>
>   flex-grow: 1
>   flex-shrink: 1 (default when omitted)
>   flex-basis: 0
>
> or even
>
>   flex-grow: 0
>   flex-shrink: 1 (default when omitted)
>   flex-basis: 1
>
> ? So I think the grammar of that shorthand has to be tweaked a bit to
> resolve the ambiguity. And possibly a word about unitless widths for
> flex-basis longhand?
>
> [1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-flexbox/#flex-property
>
> </Daniel>
>
Received on Thursday, 21 March 2013 16:06:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:07 GMT