- From: gitspeaks via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 22:09:53 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> "Used" is an English word, it's not part of the term, there is no property called `flex-factor` so it's clearly not https://drafts.csswg.org/css-cascade-5/#used-value. > One could also interpret "used" here as the *used value* of a "factor property" (i.e., either `flex-grow` or `flex-shrink`). That ambiguity is exactly the problem — it shouldn't be open to interpretation in the first place. > And I don't understand why you keep pointing at 9.7(3). The entire 9.7 refers to the flex factor multiple times, all of these instances are the flex factor determined in 9.7(1). > Aside from 9.7(3), the term "flex factor" is used *twice*, every other mention explicitly names "flex shrink factor" or "flex grow factor". The context in 9.7(5)(c), in particular, make it very clear about which "flex factor" is being referenced. > Even if you got confused by "used flex factor", the spec literally says "use the flex grow factor for the rest of this algorithm" so I just don't get how you can interpret that in any other way. That’s just not accurate. What the spec *actually* says is: >use the flex grow factor for the rest of this algorithm; otherwise, use the flex shrink factor. And even then, the wording is unnecessarily tricky. It doesn’t really accomplish anything, since the rest of the section explicitly refers to either the "flex grow factor" or the "flex shrink factor" most of the time anyway. So using the term "flex factor" without additional context just adds confusion — which is exactly the point I’ve been trying to make. -- GitHub Notification of comment by gitspeaks Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12021#issuecomment-2764261310 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Saturday, 29 March 2025 22:09:54 UTC