W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2010

Re: [css-flexbox] Summary of planned changes to Flexbox Module

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 19:02:30 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTilaCNiYC19PFfXY_1zDUBXr4_9hlpVATPl3xuvc@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com>
Cc: robert@ocallahan.org, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, Adam Del Vecchio <adam.delvecchio@go-techo.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com> wrote:
> TeX allows infinitely stretchable negative glue (more or less equivalent
> to negative flex) and it is quite useful under some circumstances,
> although its box model is different enough that I won't claim it'd
> definitely be useful in CSS.

What does negative glue do in TeX?

> Speaking of glue, though, I'm pretty sure people *would* find use for a
> CSS equivalent of "2pt plus4pt minus1pt" (i.e. "try to make this 2pt
> wide, but you can stretch it up to 6pt or squash it down to 1pt if that
> makes things fit better").

Flexbox allows that possibility for at least some things, as
max/min-width/height and possibly padding/margin with the max() and
min() functions.  Font-size probably needs that as well, and those
sorts of constraints are being discussed as part of text-align-last.

Are there any other parts of CSS that could benefit from this sort of approach?

Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2010 02:03:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:46 UTC