- From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:25:58 +0000
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Elsewhere I believe the order is not important if it is not ambiguous. Since we have to numbers they have to be in order - positive flex then negative flex if we want reasonable default. Having good defaults is key here (just as it is with 'background' property) flex(1) means (preferred=auto, positive-flex=1, negative-flex=0) flex(auto) means (preferred=auto, positive-flex=1, negative-flex=0) flex(0) means (preferred=auto, no flexibility) if this is really the way to go, it should probably accept unitless zero length at certain priority (first or last... I think last) -----Original Message----- From: Brad Kemper [mailto:brad.kemper@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 11:15 PM To: Tab Atkins Jr. Cc: Alex Mogilevsky; www-style list Subject: Re: [css3-flexbox] Best way to denote flexible lengths On Apr 13, 2011, at 5:29 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com> wrote: >> I don't like the idea of width/height taking space-separated lists. I would rather have a flex function. >> >> Given a choice between flex(1,0,auto) with commas and fixed set of arguments and flex(auto 1 0) with space separated arbitrary order, I think I would clearly prefer any-order version... > > Okay, then I'll change the draft to accept the 'fr' unit and the > 'flex()' function with space-separated any-order arguments. Sound > good? I'm confused. 'flex(auto 1 0)' is the same as 'flex(auto 0 1)' or 'flex(1 auto 0)'?
Received on Thursday, 14 April 2011 07:26:29 UTC