- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 07:53:19 -0700
- To: robert@ocallahan.org
- Cc: 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 8:15 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: > The flexbox spec. My point is that calc(20px + 1fl) collapsed with calc(10px > + 2fl) is not the same as calc(20px + 2fl) in general. It evaluates to 10px > + 1fl + max(10px, 1fl). > > But I think we can get away with genuinely collapsing calc(20px + 1fl) with > calc(10px + 2fl). Probably. Actually, it's unnecessary to do that sort of simplified collapsing. We can do genuine collapsing like you describe above without making anything any more complex. max(10px, 1fl) is equivalent to a 1fl with a min of 10px, which is a case we already have to handle for width/height, so it doesn't make the computation any more difficult. The only tricky part is wording the explanation of how to collapse in a clear way, but that's solveable. Next topic: calc(1fl - 30px). Wtf? ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2010 15:00:18 UTC