± From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] ± Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 6:02 PM ± ± Fantasai and I spent the day reviewing the syntax of all the functions currently ± defined in CSS, per ACTION-413. We posted our results and recommendations on the wiki ± at <http://wiki.csswg.org/ideas/functional-notation>. They are reproduced below: You don't mention 'flex()'. Are you two in agreement it doesn't need to be a function, or are you OK with it either way (if it lives, the syntax is good)? Also, while you have fresh memories of this broad review, can you comment on two concerns I had with flex(): 1) Are there precedents for functions that are not always applicable where they are defined (such as "width:flex()" when not in flexbox)? 2) Are there other places where use of a function changes defaults (such as "width:flex(1)" implies "width:0" instead of "width:auto")? I am not starting another discussion on flex() here, we'll have it at F2F, I am just interested if we have principles or precedents to compare... AlexReceived on Friday, 20 January 2012 02:57:23 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:10 UTC