- From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 12:32:06 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > (You're aware that the LC period has been over for a month, right? > The spec is in CR now, and design-level changes will be automatically > rejected. If you had any comments on the overall design of the spec, > you had well over a year to make them while it was in active > development.) I see "W3C Working Draft, 12 June 2012" here: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-flexbox/ And just four months ago the spec got substantial changes as you said below ... > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:02 AM, Andrew Fedoniouk > <news@terrainformatica.com> wrote: >> If we would have real flex length units [1] then this >> >> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-flexbox/images/rel-vs-abs-flex.svg >> >> can be defined simply as: >> >> first case: >> >> span { width:1*; min-width:max-content; } >> span:last-child { width:2*; } >> >> and second case: >> >> span { padding:1*; min-width:max-content; } >> span:last-child { padding:2*; } >> >> without that mix of pathetic 'basis', 'grow' and >> its antonym 'shrink'. >> >> [1] http://www.terrainformatica.com/w3/flex-layout/flex-layout.htm > > This was discussed extensively on the list and in the f2f meetings, > and won't be revisited. We have strong experimental evidence that > authors find the model of flexing always starting from width/height > unintuitive, and so we changed the model so that you can easily flex > from a starting value of 0. Let's compare this: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-flexbox/images/rel-vs-abs-flex.svg and this http://terrainformatica.com/w3/flex-spacing.png do you see any difference? First container uses flex widths, second flex paddings. The document is here: http://terrainformatica.com/w3/flex-spacing.htm you can try it in Sciter [1] for example. Again: width: *; // a.k.a. flex(1) allows width to get values from 0 to infinite. min-width/max-width may establish constrains on the range. In the same way margin:*; // or 0.5*, 2*, etc. defines margin flexing with 'border-spacing' CSS property serving role of min-width/height for margins. The same thing for padding. And yet by using existing 'box-sizing' CSS property you can choose where padding flex is applied. That is as intuitive as something like <frameset cols="200,*">. Web developers already use this concept in years. > > Forcing the flexing to start from the min-size is similarly > unintuitive. That's a constraint, not a declaration of intent. The > fact that a particular element shouldn't be made smaller than 100px > doesn't mean you want it to start flexing from 100px, particularly if > the other items in the flexbox are starting from 0. > I don't understand where "Forcing the flexing to start from the min-size" comes from, sorry. And yet: I am not a member of W3C CSS WG and so f2f discussions and reasoning pronounced there is private opinion of WG members that I respect but cannot influence. [1] Sciter2: http://terrainformatica.com/sciter/sciter2-sdk.zip, bin/sciter.exe - demo "browser". -- Andrew Fedoniouk. http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Saturday, 4 August 2012 19:32:33 UTC