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

Re: [css3-*] Review of functional syntax in CSS

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 00:55:07 -0800
Message-ID: <4F192BEB.1050308@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 01/19/2012 06:56 PM, Alex Mogilevsky wrote:
> ± 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)?

We agree 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)?

I think the closest thing we have right now is attr() applicable where
it's defined, but the attribute failing to return anything because it's

> 	2) Are there other places where use of a function changes defaults (such as "width:flex(1)" implies "width:0" instead of "width:auto")?

It doesn't actually imply width: 0, does it? I thought it implies
that the preferred width argument of the flex() function is 0.
That's not the same thing.

Received on Friday, 20 January 2012 08:55:43 UTC

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