On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>wrote: > > My preference BTW, just in case I haven't said before, to not have > preferred size in 'flex' property at all. It is there because "flex:1; > width:0;" is supposedly not intuitive. > Anecdotally, in helping debug old flexbox designs, the main confusion was with percentage sizes and vertical flexboxes. Often times there would be code with flex: 1; height: 50%; and people would be confused why their vertical flexbox doesn't fill half the available space. Having separate properties makes it hard to know the order in which flex and width/height evaluate. Perhaps "flex:1; flex-preferred-size:0; width:<ignored>;" would work better > - it is more verbose, but totally clear and doesn't involve funky defaults. I like this idea. To expand on it further, we would have three separate properties (e.g., positive-flex, negative-flex, flex-preferred-size) and flex would just be a shorthand. All would default to 0. If we're not in a flexing context or if positive flex and negative flex are both 0, we would use width/height. We only use flex-preferred-size if we have a positive or negative flex value.
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 01:00:07 UTC