- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 21:44:02 -0700
- To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote: > (Substitute width for height below if you want a different main dimension) > > Section 7.2 describes this shorthand: > > --- > Œflex: <positive-number>¹ > Equivalent to Œflex: <positive-number> 1 0px¹. Makes the flex item > flexible and sets the flex basis to 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 factor. > --- > > > The last sentence is true only if the flex items do not have min-width or > max-width set (and the next paragraph advises you to set min-width). > Perhaps this is a bug, but it's consistent in both Blink and Gecko. If > it's not a bug, then the sentence should be qualified or deleted. You're correct, but that's also a non-normative statement intended to give a general idea of the meaning of that pattern. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2013 04:44:49 UTC