W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2011

Re: [css3-flexbox] remove flex() function

From: Tony Chang <tony@chromium.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:28:38 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL-=4P08+rq0sUzNrAR8_aG=OV6Q_tysZA7mTVaOt0tDBXOFmg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>, Ojan Vafai <ojan@google.com>
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
> > I like the idea 'flex' property much more than 'flex' function. That IMO
> is totally "CSS way".
> >
> >        flex: [ <pos-flex> <neg-flex>? ]? || <preferred-size>?
> [snip bit about sub-properties]
> So, yay/nay on this?  I'm okay with it, but I'm also okay with the
> status quo.  Tony, Ojan, thoughts?

I think it's workable, but I have some questions.
- Would min-width/max-width still apply or should there be a
- If width and preferred size are omitted, do we still flex with a
preferred size of 0?
- If preferred size is omitted, but width is provided, do we completely
ignore the width and use the default preferred size of 0?
- What is the initial value of flex? It would have to be "0 0 auto" to get
the same behavior as the current spec (no flexing and auto sizing).  It's a
bit weird that if you then use flex: 100px, it resolves to an initial value
of "1 0 100px".

It's also a bit weird that, e.g., if you open a document using developer
tools and you want to change the size of a flex item, changing width won't
do anything.  This could also be confusing for user style sheets or user

Received on Friday, 16 December 2011 23:29:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:08 UTC