Re: [css3-flexbox] remove flex() function

Nay from me. I don't think it's the end of the world if we make this
change, but I find the new flexbox much easier to make sense of largely
because the values you set are width and height. It's not great that we
don't have a concept of a logical width for when you want to switch between
row and column, but in practice you'll hit that use-case writing flexbox
tests far more often than you'll hit in with real-world use-cases.

I acknowledge that there are some use-cases better met by a flex property,
but I don't think it's worth the loss in clarity of just setting
width/height directly.

Ojan

On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>wrote:

> ± From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com]
> ± Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 3:40 PM
> ±
> ± Oof, I forget about min/max.  It's kinda silly to switch away from
> ± 'width' to avoid being tied to a physical direction when min/max still
> ± tie you down.  So yeah, I guess we'd have to include min and max in the
> ± property, for something like:
> ±
> ± flex: [ <pos-flex> <neg-flex>? ] || <preferred-size> || [ max <length-or-
> ± %> ] || [ min <length-or-%> ]
>
> Min/max sizes *should* be directional, they have to do with known
> qualities of content. I don't recall lack of flex-specific min/max ever
> being raised as a problem for old syntax... I would very much prefer to not
> add another redundant measurement (even optional) unless there is a strong
> use case for it.
>
> ± > - If width and preferred size are omitted, do we still flex with a
> ± > preferred size of 0?
> ±
> ± It would have the same defaults as normal, which is to default the
> ± preferred size to 0.
>
> Agree
>
> ± > - If preferred size is omitted, but width is provided, do we
> ± > completely ignore the width and use the default preferred size of 0?
> ±
> ± Yeah, that seems the sanest thing.
>
> Also agree, but I think there should be an option to use specified width.
> Perhaps 'auto' preferred width could mean that 'width' property is used? So
>
>        flex:1 auto; width:100px;
>
> would be same as
>
>        flex:1 100px;
>
> what do you think?
>
> ± > - What is the initial value of flex? It would have to be "0 0 auto" to
> ± > get the same behavior as the current spec (no flexing and auto
> ± > sizing).  It's a bit weird that if you then use flex: 100px, it
> ± > resolves to an initial value of "1 0 100px".
> ±
> ± Hmm, I don't find that particularly weirder than the fact that the
> ± default for 'width' is "auto" (equivalent to "flex(0 0 auto)"), but
> ± specifying "width:flex(100px)" is equivalent to "width: flex(1 0 100px)".
>
> Actually with this change of syntax, "flex:100px" really should mean
> "flex:0 0 100px". That would be much cleaner design and it is how initial
> values behave elsewhere.
>
> Note that if you really think default flex should be "1" you can make that
> initial value. I am not suggesting that's the right thing to do but it
> would also be consistent.
>
> ±
> ± > It's also a bit weird that, e.g., if you open a document using
> ± > developer tools and you want to change the size of a flex item,
> ± > changing width won't do anything.  This could also be confusing for
> ± > user style sheets or user scripts.
> ±
> ± Yes, those are some downsides.
>
> Yes, and it makes me uncomfortable every time I think about it. It may be
> not intuitive if 'width' in flexbox is <preferred-width>, but it will be
> confusing only first couple of times somebody uses flexbox, and perfectly
> natural for the next 60 years that somebody uses CSS...
>
> --Alex
>