- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:42:27 -0700
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > 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)'? As Alex says, the pos-flex and neg-flex, being both integers, must be ordered. The obvious order is that the first integer is pos-flex and the second is neg-flex, so "flex(auto 1 0)" would be equivalent to "flex(1 auto 0)", "flex(1 0 auto)", "flex(1 auto)", "flex(auto 1)", "flex(1)" and "flex(auto)". (I think that's the most prolific combination for variants, because it matches the defaults.) ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 14 April 2011 16:43:09 UTC