- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 17:37:47 -0400
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 05/31/2012 02:30 PM, Sylvain Galineau wrote: > > [Tab Atkins Jr.:] >> >> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Sylvain Galineau<sylvaing@microsoft.com> >> wrote: >>> This section holds a note that says: >>> >>> # Authors are encouraged to control flexibility using the 'flex' shorthand >> rather than with component properties. >>> >>> Any particular reason this encouragement is required for Flexbox? >>> >>> [1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-flexbox/#flex-components >> >> Because there are two basic types of flexing you can do (the old "absolute" >> vs "relative" flexing distinction) and the initial values for the properties >> are set up to only support one of them. Using the 'flex' shorthand ensures >> that things "just work" in the common cases. >> > Then I think this encouragement would deserve some elaboration as the motive for it > is imo non-obvious for authors. Or, to put it another way, I think this encouragement > will be far less effective without a rationale. How about | Authors are encouraged to control flexibility using the 'flex' shorthand | rather than with component properties, the shorthand correctly resets any | unspecified components to accommodate common uses. ? ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2012 01:06:54 UTC