W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2014

Re: [css-flexbox] Renaming flex-basis:auto for less confusion

From: Bruno Racineux <bruno@hexanet.net>
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 00:06:56 -0800
To: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>, Rossen Atanassov <Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D07F051E.902F7%bruno@hexanet.net>


On 11/3/14 1:45 PM, "Daniel Holbert" <dholbert@mozilla.com> wrote:

>The "main-size" rename has only made it as far as Firefox's "beta"
>release -- it hasn't made it to an official release yet. It's possible
>we'd discover more breakage on the release channel.

Why do implementors have to break the previous behavior in the first place?

Can't browsers implement the new keyword and keep the old 'auto' keyword
for a while, for backward compatibility reasons, and just issue warnings
in the console to avoid said breakage if proven a significant problem?

>The second proposal would restore this oddness from the original
>spec-text ("auto" being able to pull in "auto"), though it's a bit
>better now that we have a non-"auto" keyword that we can use to describe
>the sizing behavior when this happens ("content").

It would also restore the 'flex: none' = "flex: 0 0 auto' equality, which
in my view was confusing, for a keyword 'none' to expanded to '0 0 auto'.

i.e. If devs happen or must use the long form. The presence of the keyword
'auto' is mentally conflicting with the keyword 'none' both in the same
property but with different meanings. 'main-size' removes that conflict.

As an author, I suggest to stick with the current long-term solution and
make the old 'auto' compatible for the short-term if necessary.

PS: The spec still refer to 'flex-basis:auto' on the svg Figure 6.
Received on Wednesday, 5 November 2014 08:07:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:26 UTC