- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 18:18:22 -0700
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 3:52 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > Some comments on > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-flexbox/#resolve-flexible-lengths : > > In step 5, "the sign choosing the flex ratio" is very confusing. I > think it should explicitly point to step 1. (It took me quite a > while to understand that that's what it meant; I initially assumed > it was extraneous wording that duplicated the distinction in the > bullet points following.) We didn't add an explicit link, but instead revised the wording so that it's more explicit anyway. > I don't like the terminology "flex grow ratio" and "flex shrink > ratio", because they're not ratios -- they're weights or portions, > or in the case of flex-shrink, a number to be multiplied by a width > in order to get a weight or a portion. I think it makes sense to > call the number computed during step 5 a "ratio", but I don't think > the numbers it's computed from should be called ratios. We did s/ratio/factor/. > I also think it would be better if what the flex-shrink and > flex-grow properties were described a little bit under the > definitions of those properties -- at least to the point of > explaining that flex-shrink is multiplied by width and flex-grow is > not, rather than only in the algorithm where authors reading the > spec are going to have more difficulty finding it. (It also might > make more sense to have that definition along with the individual > properties rather than under the shorthand -- although in this case, > given that the shorthand is the preferred form, maybe it makes sense > as it is with the prose under the shorthand.) Yeah, we've just collected the explanations under the 'flex' shorthand, but they link up. We've put in a line about how the flex shrink factor is multiplied by the flex basis. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 7 September 2012 01:19:09 UTC