- From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 22:21:48 +0000
- To: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
- CC: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
± From: Daniel Holbert [mailto:dholbert@mozilla.com] ± Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 2:42 PM ± ± On 05/31/2012 02:18 PM, Alex Mogilevsky wrote: ± > It would make "flex:1 -1 100px" look cool and we certainly can do ± that. It would however create the first ever precedent of a property taking ± negative values only. And its meaning is not really "negative", it is ability ± to shrink... ± > ± > Maybe we should just use a different word in the spec? ± ± Perhaps just: ± s/positive flex ratio/flex grow ratio/ ± s/negative flex ratio/flex shrink ratio/ with appropriate massaging of ± contextual text? ± (e.g. "If the sign of the free space matches the sign of the flexibility" ± would perhaps get s/matches the sign/matches the type/.) ± ± I don't think there's any reason for the spec to talk about these as ± "positive" vs. "negative" ratios anymore, especially now that they have their ± own properties that use the "grow"/"shrink" terminology. ± ± Any signed-ness really comes from the amount of free space, and then we ± select the grow or the shrink ratio based on that sign. The ratio itself is ± always nonnegative (and could always be 0 -- neither negative nor positive), ± and calling it a "negative ratio" vs. "positive ratio" ± confuses that fact. +1
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2012 22:23:26 UTC