- 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>
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. -Boris
Received on Thursday, 13 January 2011 05:44:40 UTC