On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Giovanni Campagna <
scampa.giovanni@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/4/13 Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.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.
>
> The only reason to use calc() is percentage, and percentages are
> supported for sure
You're right, sorry. The rest of my point still stands, though.
> If you wanted to sum em and cm, or pt and px, you
> could do the calculation manually, since you know the conversion
> factors.
>
That's not true, authors do not know the ratio of em to cm or pt to px. But
it doesn't matter...
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 09:07:18 UTC