W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2009

Re: [CSS3] Flexible Flow Module, proposal.

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 15:44:24 -0700
Message-ID: <49E26EC8.7080703@terrainformatica.com>
To: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
CC: robert@ocallahan.org, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
David Hyatt wrote:
> On Apr 12, 2009, at 5:19 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
>> That is not what I was asking for.
>> Suppose I have elements A and B with intrinsic widths 100px and 200px 
>> respectively. Suppose the container has width 400px, and I want the 
>> extra space to be distributed equally to A and B, so they end up with 
>> widths 150px and 250px. Your proposal has no way to do this as far as 
>> I can tell, nor is it possible by setting min-widths or max-widths.
>> This is actually the default behaviour for XUL boxes, so it seems 
>> important to me that any flex-box-like spec be able to do it.
> Yeah, I just brought this up in my last message as well.  The only way I 
> can see to solve this for flex units is to actually specify both values, 
> e.g.,
> width: (100px)1*
> or something like that....

I am not sure I understand the problem.

If you will define:

#A { width:max-intrinsic; padding-left:1*; padding-right:1* }
#B { width:max-intrinsic; padding-left:1*; padding-right:1* }

than widths of *border* boxes will be set in the way you want.

Is this the answer or I've missed something?

> Flex units are attractive though to me, since if we could make them work 
> we can eliminate box-flex, box-pack and box-align.
> dave
> (hyatt@apple.com)

Andrew Fedoniouk.

Received on Sunday, 12 April 2009 22:45:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:35 UTC