- From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 00:04:42 +0000
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
± From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net] ± Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 12:55 AM ± ± > 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. :) OK ± > 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. Actually the problem is using "width:flex(1)" outside flexbox. It can't be ignored because it is valid, then it has to mean something (as discussed earlier). It could mean "auto" or it could mean "use the preferred width", which in this case is 0 -- the different default I am talking about... Alex
Received on Saturday, 21 January 2012 00:05:15 UTC