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

RE: [css3-flexbox] intuitivity and width computation rules

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 05:44:05 +0000
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
CC: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E2AADAA37@TK5EX14MBXC111.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Well, like Daniel, I thought that specifying box-flex meant I didn't have to set width. In my case at least, what may have contributed to this were the many super-simple examples and testcases which mostly involve boxes with very little or no content - very commonly the "1", "2", "3" flex sample seen in almost every blog post on the topic [1] - where you don't run into this situation.

I wouldn't be surprised if others end up assuming the same i.e. setting box-flex 2, 1, 1 does not require setting widths to 50%, 25%, 25%. And their reaction to being told they have to will often be "well, what's the point then ?"  

[1] http://www.the-haystack.com/2010/01/23/css3-flexbox-part-1/
From: Boris Zbarsky [bzbarsky@MIT.EDU]
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 6:43 PM
To: Sylvain Galineau
Cc: Daniel Glazman; www-style list
Subject: Re: [css3-flexbox] intuitivity and width computation rules

On 1/12/11 8:11 PM, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
> If they clearly understand how box-flex applies after width was calculated,
> sure. But then I'm not sure why they'd write this stylesheet.

Right.  It's not clear to me why we're trying to solve this problem with
box-flex, if I understood the problem correctly.  It's not what box-flex
is meant for.


Received on Thursday, 13 January 2011 05:44:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:54 UTC