- From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 00:23:55 +0000
- To: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
- CC: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
± From: Daniel Holbert [mailto:dholbert@mozilla.com] ± Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 5:06 PM ± ± On 06/05/2012 03:04 PM, Alex Mogilevsky wrote: ± > We should make this decision together with the choice of what ± > "flex:<number>" does, and it seems the choice her is between "clear" ± > and "clever". ± [...] ± > CLEAR: ± > * initial: "flex:auto" == "flex:1 1 auto" ± > * "flex:X" == "flex:X X" ± [...] ± > CLEVER: ± > * initial: "flex:0 1 auto" ± > * "flex:X" == "flex:X 1" ± ± These seem like orthogonal issues to me. Why would accepting proposal C ± (initial "flex:0 1 auto") imply that we also want "flex:X" to mean ± "flex:X 1"? It doesn't. It would make sense though if we prefer clever defaults. Keeping "flex-shink:1" always, unless it is explicitly changed, maintains the behavior that matches default, and we have already decided that we like it.
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2012 00:25:23 UTC