RE: [css3-flexbox] Negative flexibility and proportional shrinking

The way it was defined before, negative flexibility almost never worked in any useful way, other than when items are about same size to begin with. When initial size are significantly different, smaller items shrink to zero (or min size) very fast, while bigger items are still comfortably big.

You can comparing this with taking and giving money (subsidies vs. taxes): when you want to give money, you will usually not give more money to rich people, you will give equally or give more to the poor; when you tax people, you always take more from those who have more.

No, growing up in USSR did not make me a communist and this comparison is not to make Hakon like the option)) ... I think the strategy of distributing scarce resources vs. abundant resources always works differently, most examples I can think of are similar to what we do here.

Alex

-----Original Message-----
From: Morten Stenshorne [mailto:mstensho@opera.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 1:16 AM
To: www-style@w3.org
Subject: [css3-flexbox] Negative flexibility and proportional shrinking

A few weeks ago the spec was changed to make negative and positive flexibility behave differently.

While positive flexibility just uses the flex ratio, negative flexibility takes each item's base size into account as well ("proportional shrinking").

1. Why does it make sense to have such a difference between negative and positive flexibility?

2. Now that min-width and min-height have 'auto' as their inital value, is proportional shrinking really necessary?

--
---- Morten Stenshorne, developer, Opera Software ASA ----
---- Office: +47 23692400 ------ Mobile: +47 93440112 ----
------------------ http://www.opera.com/ -----------------

Received on Monday, 25 June 2012 19:42:50 UTC