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

Re: [CSS3] Flexible Flow Module, proposal.

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:41:16 +1200
Message-ID: <11e306600904121841h3e80fe24vdc7bd3f12ae3e4d0@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Cc: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
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.

"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
Received on Monday, 13 April 2009 01:41:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:13:36 UTC