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

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

From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 08:29:06 +0100
Message-ID: <4D2EA9C2.7050306@disruptive-innovations.com>
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
CC: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Le 13/01/11 06:44, Sylvain Galineau a écrit :
> 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 ?"


I can find at least ten web pages demo'ing flexbox with
<div class="box">1</div> and showing three horiz boxes
same height with 1/2 1/4 1/4 widths. The first thing all
authors will try is replacing "1" by "lorem ipsum blabla"
and that will fail...

Über-techies will say it's normal it fails. All the others will
ask why. That's what we have to fix.
And I also say "width: 0" is not understandable to specify the
desired behaviour here.

Received on Thursday, 13 January 2011 07:29:41 UTC

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