- From: Bruno Racineux <bruno@hexanet.net>
- Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 03:05:25 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 7/1/14 9:01 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >At the last f2f, we discussed the fact our current usage of "auto" in >'flex-basis' is sub-optimal. For one, it means that it's impossible >to explicitly ask for "auto" sizing behavior from 'flex-basis': you >have to set "flex-basis:auto" to make it draw from 'width', then set >"width:auto" to transmit the auto-sizing behavior to it. For two, as >illustrated in the previous sentence, "auto" in 'flex-basis's computed >value means something *completely different* to "auto" in its used >value, which is confusing and weird. Argh! This aspect never bothered me personally. My own confusion was more with the actual shorthands, such as 'flex:none' having a 'flex-basis' of 'auto', where having both 'none' and 'auto' in the same context was weird. >We suggest ''main-size'' for the new keyword. dbaron pointed out that >the term "main" doesn't actually show up in the author-facing API, but >it does show up *everywhere* in the spec itself, so hopefully this >will be adequate. We can bikeshed this name further if necessary. I'd suggest 'auto-size' if the keyword must be different. 'main-size' seem right but sound a bit like an end result as opposed to what it draws from. Or perhaps 'flex-size'.
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 10:05:53 UTC