- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 16:42:41 -0700
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 3:18 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > # If the first two values are non-negative numbers and the third value is > ‘0’, > # the positive flexibility is set to the first value, the negative > flexibility > # is set to the second value, and the preferred size is set to ‘0px’. > # Otherwise, If two of the values are non-negative numbers, and the other > is a > # <length> (with a unit suffix), a <percentage>, or a valid keyword, the > positive > # flexibility is set to the first number, the negative flexibility is set > to the > # second number, and the preferred size is set to the other value. > > It seems a bit confusing to me to keep track of the positive and negative > flex > values and how the syntax works. Have you considered denoting negative flex > values with a negative number? That way it's obvious which value indicates > which > type of flex. For now, <neg-flex> is still a non-negative number. > # User agents that allow non-zero length values without unit suffix in > "quirks mode" > # may also accept a non-zero positive number as the preferred size in > pixels when > # in "quirks mode" and when it is the third value in flex() function with > three > # values. > > This seems rather unnecessary. I can't imagine a backwards-compatibility > issue > with people using unprefixed lengths in a flex() function. This has been fixed; there is now an explicit requirement that preferred lengths have a unit identifier. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 24 August 2011 23:43:35 UTC