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 22:39:30 -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: <20100527223930.7e1d5061@moxana.local>
Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 27, 2010, at 5:39 PM, Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com>  
> wrote:
> >> 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.
> It's not confusing if you expect it and count on it because it is  
> sometimes what you want. There Is always 'min-width' for the other  
> times. 

This is on a different level.  I am saying that calc(10px + 1fl) 
*reads as if* it cannot be narrower than 10px, and therefore Tab's
proposed semantics are confusing. You are saying that sometimes you 
want it to be narrower than 10px, but to that I say, why not write 
calc(10px + 1fl - upto(10px)) if that's what you mean?

Received on Friday, 28 May 2010 05:40:03 UTC

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