- From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 22:15:29 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org
- CC: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
On 22/05/2012 01:08, Ojan Vafai wrote: > I think this was probably an oversight in the recent changes to the spec, > but at some point, the default value of flex-basis changed from 0px to auto. > > "‘flex:<positive-number>’ > Equivalent to ‘flex:<positive-number> 1 0px’. This value makes the flex > item flexible, and sets the flex basisto zero, resulting in an item that > receives the specified proportion of the free space in the flex container. > If all items in the flex container use this pattern, their sizes will be > proportional to the specified flex ratio." > > That seems like the correct default behavior. Having auto as the preferred > size is considerably slower and often not what the developer wants. It > should not be the default value. By "default value", do you mean initial value? If so, I interpret your concern as being that if you create a flexbox but don't specify any flex-* properties, you get flex: 1 1 auto. (I'm not entirely sure I've understood you, to be honest!) I'm interested to understand how the fact that one value is slower than another is a valid concern in deciding what to define as the initial value of a property. It seems to me that the author wants whatever behaviour they want; if the initial value of a property doesn't meet their needs in a given situation then they'll explicitly specify something else. It's not like they'll just say "well, that rendering will do, I guess" and stick with the "default" out of laziness. (At least, not in my experience! Authors tend to be pretty exacting.) Cheers, Anton Prowse http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 20:16:23 UTC