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

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

From: Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 17:39:52 -0700
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: "Andrew Fedoniouk" <news@terrainformatica.com>, W3C Emailing list for WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100527173952.1a4dd6d0@trurl>
Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 27, 2010, at 9:20 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > \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 think I agree with Andrew, then.  See more detailed reply to Tab

> 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.

That the confusing behavior only happens under rare circumstances
does not excuse the confusing behavior.

Received on Friday, 28 May 2010 00:40:27 UTC

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