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

Re: vertical % margins and padding on flexbox (was Re: [CSSWG] Minutes Telecon 2013-03-27)

From: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 17:00:08 -0700
Message-ID: <CANMdWTvQ-vr+QO9qiTX+emZfXx8-PmPdZguDwHLKSt=QJj6B-Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:59 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
> wrote:
> > [ Please change the Subject: line when replying to minutes if it's
> >   not about a correction to the minutes. ]
> >
> > On Thursday 2013-03-28 11:16 -0700, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 6:15 PM, fantasai <
> fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>wrote:
> >> >   - RESOLVED: We copy the behaviour of % margins/paddings from grid to
> >> >               flexbox: they are relative to their respective
> dimension,
> >> >               not always the inline dimension (as in block layout)
> >>
> >> Was not supporting % margins/paddings on both grid and flexbox
> considered?
> >> It seems to me a mistake that we support them on blocks, but it's a
> mistake
> >> we're stuck with.
> >
> > It wasn't.
> >
> > What would you do with such margins and padding?  Treat them as
> > zero?
>

That's what I had in mind.


> I don't think it makes sense to not support them.  We don't have
> anything better to do with percentages, and can define them to resolve
> against a value that might be useful.
>

Might theoretically be useful is not a great reason to support something if
it's not *actually* useful. We'll all need extra code to handle this. It's
not hard...but it's more code, more tests, etc. without any use-case.

Ojan
Received on Friday, 29 March 2013 00:00:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 29 March 2013 00:00:56 UTC