- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 23:08:21 -0700
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On May 27, 2010, at 10:44 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> However, I admit to mixing up the two models in my mind a bit. And regardlessly Dave did not want to have to do a calc(fit-to-content + 1fl) in order to simulate additive flex by using absolute flex units. The above would not go that far by itself, because it does not distribute the _leftover_ space (or lack thereof using negative flex), it only distributes the total space (I think I understand this right now; it's all starting to sink in more and more). > > It's much easier, I think if you don't try to think of absolute and > additive flex as being different; they're really not. My distribution > algorithm, which I believe captures the correct behavior, doesn't > distinguish between the two. Here's how it works, generally: Yeah, I think we are saying the same thing. I think your flex units can do what has been called additive flex, if you don't mind a little calc() here and there, to add the flex to whatever width you prefer, whether it is 0 (where calc() isn't actually required), fit-content, 50px, or whatever.
Received on Friday, 28 May 2010 06:08:57 UTC