- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 19:13:10 -0700
- To: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
- Cc: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com> wrote: > So are we OK with making "flex" shorthand set the flex basis to 0% by > default, then, since that has the dont-shrink-me-bro properties that Tab > was looking for in [1]? I think so, yes. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com> wrote: > On 05/16/2013 01:57 AM, David Hyatt wrote: >> My preference would be to just change "auto" to have this behavior, >> and then make a new keyword for "always use my width/height." > > Dave: To clarify -- under your proposal, would we keep the flex-basis > initial value at "auto" (with your suggested new "auto" semantics, > thereby changing default behavior), or would we change that initial > value to be the new always-use-my-width/height keyword (with the old > auto semantics)? > > Also, isn't it a bit risky to make a significant change to what > "flex-basis:auto" does for a at this stage in the game? In particular, > any authors who have copypasted one of the suggested "Common values of > flex" strings like "flex: auto" or "flex: 0 auto" would have their > content broken, if we changed what "auto" means. (And their content > would stay broken until they replaced it with "flex: > use-my-width-or-height" or "flex: 0 use-my-width-or-height"). > > Generally, I feel like this fix is disproportionately large / breaking, > as compared to the scope of the original issue that Tab was trying to > solve in this thread. Agreed - I don't think I'm willing to make a change this breaking at this point, particularly when we have such an easy solution at hand. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 24 May 2013 02:13:58 UTC