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

Re: [flex-units] unit abbreviations and the flex()

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 10:02:31 -0700
Cc: "Andrew Fedoniouk" <news@terrainformatica.com>, W3C Emailing list for WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D41B95D4-0C61-4720-B432-3F123717248F@gmail.com>
To: Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com>

On May 27, 2010, at 9:20 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote:

> I had been under the impression that your '1*' in a CSS <length>
> was _exactly_ the same thing as writing \hspace{0px plus 1fil}.  Except
> that it can't be that simple, because you object so strenuously to what
> you call "additive" flexes, but to my mind, \hspace{10px plus 1fil} is
> a perfectly sensible thing to want ("make this no smaller than 10px,
> but it can be stretched without limit if necessary"), and 
> calc(10px + 1fl) is exactly how I want to write that.  

Not really, because flex can also be negative. If there is not enough space for it to be 10px, because even without flex there is not enough space for that, then the 1fl can make it less than 10px. So the "no smaller than 10px" is not right. I think this is what Andrew objects to, because he feels that it makes the width too unpredictable. I disagree, because it is only when the space in the width of the container is too constrained that all the flex widths all get narrower than their intrinsic or set widths.

Least-wise, that's how I understand it.
Received on Thursday, 27 May 2010 17:03:06 UTC

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