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 14:31:22 +1200
Message-ID: <11e306600904121931y7bc9e843if03ea2b7d4c6cfc8@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 2:09 PM, Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com
> wrote:

> But why do you need that box-flex there?
> As far as I understand that is the case for the calc() then:
> #A { width: calc(200px + (100% - 300px) / 2); }
> #B { width: calc(100px + (100% - 300px) / 2); }
> Flexes are needed when you want to take intrinsic widths or min/max
> constraints into account.

I don't think you can use percentages in calc() that way. Even if you could,
trying to write it out using calc that way requires knowing the desired
width and flex of all children to write the rule for each child. It would
totally fail if you don't know what the markup is.

In your expression:
> #A { width: 200px; box-flex: 1; }
> the width defines something that is really different from meaning of the
> width in CSS and this really what caused problems in understanding it
> on my side. I suspect that I am not alone.

Yes, that is a problem with box-flex. Maybe Zack's suggestion for allowing
calc to resolve to "fixed-units + flex-units" and then resolving the rest at
layout time is the way to go.

"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 02:31:59 UTC

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