Re: [css3-flexbox] comments on "Resolve flexible lengths"

On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 3:52 PM, L. David Baron <> wrote:
> Some comments on
> :
> 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.


Received on Friday, 7 September 2012 01:19:09 UTC