- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 10:29:24 -0700
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:57 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > Proposal A: ''flex: none'' (discarded at Hamburg) > * It's easier to use alignment and auto margins > * Easier for use cases that want some but not most items flexible, > e.g. one item takes up all free space > - Doesn't have negative flexibility be default, which could help > prevent overflow in many cases > - Inconsistent with 'stretch' default in cross-dimension > > Proposal B: ''flex: auto'' (adopted at Hamburg) > + Negative flex is on by default, preventing overflow in many cases > + Consistent with 'stretch' default in cross-dimension > - Harder to use alignment and margins, since have to turn off flex first > - More work for use cases that want most items inflexible > > Proposal C: ''flex: 0 1 auto'' (proposed here) > + Negative flex is on by default, preventing overflow in many cases > + Easy to use alignment and auto margins since positive free space is > not flexed > + Easy for use cases where free space is distributed to e.g. only one > item > - Inconsistent with 'stretch' default in cross-dimension I mildly prefer C as well. It's clearly a better variant of A, so we don't even need to consider A. I like the benefits of C, that it makes alignment work by default and makes it easier to handle the common case of a single item absorbing the leftover space. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 4 June 2012 17:30:15 UTC