- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:33:16 -0800
- To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
There was some disagreement during the FtF presentation on Flexbox over how best to write flexible lengths. In particular, the current syntax very slightly favors "absolute" flexes over "additive" flexes. The discussion didn't go too far in person, so I'm bringing it to the list for more measured evaluation. Here's a few options that were brought up: (1) Absolute flex can be specified by passing a single argument to the flex() function, like flex(1). (The preferred width defaults to 0.) Additive flex can be specified by passing three arguments to the flex() function, like flex(1,0,200px). The simplest additive flex (flexing from 'auto') can be specified by just using 'auto'. (2) Additive flex can be specified by passing a single argument to the flex() function, like flex(200px). (The positive flexibility defaults to 1.) Absolute flex can be specified by passing two arguments to the flex() function, like flex(0,1). (3) Absolute flex can be specified by passing a single argument to the flex() function, like flex(1). Additive flex can be specified by passing a single argument to the flex-size() function, like flex-size(200px). (The positive flexibility defaults to 1.) (4) Absolute flex can be specified with the 'fl' unit, like 1fl. Additive flex can be specified with the flex() function, like flex(200px). (The positive flexibility defaults to 1.) (5) Absolute flex can be specified by passing an integer to the flex() function, like flex(1). Additive flex can be specified by passing a length to the flex() function, like flex(200px). I don't have strong opinions on which choice to make, but I slightly lean toward (1) (it's what currently in the draft, after all). What do other people think? ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2011 22:34:19 UTC