- From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 00:20:33 +0000
- To: Tony Chang <tony@chromium.org>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
± From: tc@google.com [mailto:tc@google.com] On Behalf Of Tony Chang ± Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 11:39 AM ± ± ... I'm not sure how common something like this is. It's also ± possible to handle with additional style rules. I agree that for normal use of flexbox most of issues I have brought up would have been very rare. The problem is not how it will affect use of the feature, the problem is that the interference with other features and subtle DOM issues will have to be explained in detail in the spec, it will have to be extensively tested in the test suite, and it will complicate implementations. I can easily see test suite for flex() function being twice as big as the same for 'flex' property. If we can get the same benefits without higher cost - we should...
Received on Wednesday, 30 November 2011 00:21:03 UTC