± From: ojan@google.com [mailto:ojan@google.com] On Behalf Of Ojan Vafai ± Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 7:27 PM ± To: Alex Mogilevsky ± Cc: Tab Atkins Jr.; Tony Chang; www-style@w3.org list ± Subject: 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 Lack of logical width is just one problem. There are more issues with "flex()" (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Nov/0729.html), and biggest issue for me that it if applied to 'width' and 'height' it is always valid and must make sense when not in flexbox. And it is just not the way it is done elsewhere in CSS, and the concept doesn't seem unique enough to justify a unique solution.
Received on Thursday, 5 January 2012 04:15:19 UTC