- From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:41:16 +1200
- To: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Cc: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Received on Monday, 13 April 2009 01:41:54 UTC
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote: > Compare > #A { width: 200px; box-flex: 1; } > #B { width: 100px; box-flex: 1; } > to > #A { min-width: 200px; width:1*; } > #B { min-width: 100px; width:1*; } > in a container of width 400px. In the box-flex case, A and B get widths > 250px and 150px. In the width:1* case, A and B both get width 200px. > Hacking calc() to allow mixing of flex and specified widths seems problematic to me because of the time-of-evaluation issue. An expedient way to marry the two flex systems would be to just support box-flex *and* flex units. 'box-flex' would be additional flex that can be added along the container's flow axis, giving you the ability to add flex to a specified or intrinsic dimension. Rob -- "He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah 53:5-6]
Received on Monday, 13 April 2009 01:41:54 UTC