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

Re: [CSS3] Flexible Flow Module, proposal.

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 16:01:14 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0904141401m30c87cbjfefb5d038a1454b7@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Cc: Giovanni Campagna <scampa.giovanni@gmail.com>, "Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd)" <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Is there a particular reason that a bare * needs to be supported?
Andrew, you keep citing it as a necessity.  It does appear to be a
very slight convenience, but that's all.

I wouldn't be crushed if I had to write "margin: 0 1*;" or "margin: 0
1fl;" rather than "margin: 0 *;".

(With that said, I understand the mnemonic that using "*" as a unit
brings - it evokes the feel of the * wildcard in regexps, in that it
grabs everything that isn't otherwise specified.  However, I also
remember that the % unit caused some issues in calc(), leading to the
WG having to adopt "mod" as the modulo function in calc rather than
the more standard % glyph.)

Giovanni Campagna said:
> Grid Positioning copied that syntax into "grid-columns"
> and "grid-rows", ignoring the existance of a "fr" unit.

IIRC, the "fr" unit didn't exist at that time.  Hakon introduced it
relatively recently into GCPM for the border-parts proposal.  I
distinctly recall getting into a naming argument then, as I liked the
unit "fl" (from flex) better than "fr" (from "fraction").

But seriously guys, this is a tiny, tiny issue about the name of a
unit.  It's totally not worth the effort.

Received on Tuesday, 14 April 2009 21:01:50 UTC

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