W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2012

RE: [css3-flexbox] "inherit" as the preferred size subcomponent of "flex" property

From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 03:01:50 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
CC: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D51C9E849DDD0D4EA38C2E539856928412E7B830@TK5EX14MBXC214.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
± From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] 
± Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 6:18 PM
± On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com> wrote:
± >
± >  flex: 1 0 inherit;
± >
± > I submit "please no" as an answer.  If "inherit" were allowed there, it'd 
± make style-computation more complex, since it takes extra work to figure out 
± what value should be inherited by that subcomponent (width or height, 
± depending on whether we're horizontal or vertical).
± 'inherit' is never valid as a component of a property, only as the
± entire value.   So you're good.  ^_^

Yes. I mean "no". 'inherit' is not valid there.

Not sure what would be the right language to say "everything except 'inherit'". There may be other values in the future that are not applicable here (let's say at some point "flex()" function becomes applicable to any length anywhere - we wouldn't want it here, right?). Listing all currently allowed values wouldn't be future proof either.

Maybe it should say 

    | any value that would be valid in the 'width' or 'height' 
    | property, except 'inherit'; in the future, some new value values 
    | for 'width' or 'height' may also not be applicable to flexbox, 
    | which should be noted when new values are introduced.

Having a specific term for <with> value (as Boris suggests) would help too, but we can't predict that whatever works for 'width' will always work for preferred size...

Received on Saturday, 25 February 2012 03:02:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:12 UTC