W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2013

Re: [css-flexbox] "flex: 1;" does the wrong thing in min-size constraint sizing

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 12:14:44 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAdYupz7fyAyU_pzqAHPTvZH8-gSZcxshNLVA2kQuJikQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 8:30 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> On 05/14/2013 05:30 PM, Daniel Holbert wrote:
>> Aside: the flexbox spec actually used to have 0% as the default
>> flex-basis value in the flex shorthand, but it this default changed from
>> "0%" to "the length zero" in this commit from August:
>>
>>    https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/csswg/rev/b2a41fac8bd9#l2.71
>>
>> At first I thought it might've been a mistake (since the commit message
>> sounds like it wasn't intending to change meaning), but I don't think it
>> was a mistake, because the next changeset replaced "0%" with "0px" in a
>> several other places, e.g.:
>>
>>     https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/csswg/rev/4e1547aca385#l1.127
>>
>> fantasai or Tab, do you happen to recall the reason for that change?  (I
>> searched my www-style archive for "flex-basis", but I couldn't find
>> anything related, in the timeframe of those commits.)
>
>
> I honestly can't remember the reason for that change. Probably some
> internal discussion between me and Tab, though I don't recall whether
> it was intended to be substantive or editorial.

It was intended to be editorial.  We didn't realize that it actually
changed meaning, due to the weirdness of percentages.  (The fact that
0% can't compute to 0 is definitely weird from an intuitive
standpoint, though it of course makes sense when you step back and
value consistency and lack of rounding-sensitive behavior.)

~TJ
Received on Friday, 19 July 2013 17:15:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:32 UTC