On 11/03/2014 01:45 PM, Daniel Holbert wrote: > > The second proposal would restore this oddness from the original > spec-text ("auto" being able to pull in "auto"), though it's a bit > better now that we have a non-"auto" keyword that we can use to describe > the sizing behavior when this happens ("content"). I'm not sure if that weirdness is worse or the fact that switching up 'flex: auto' to 'flex: <integer> auto' fails to map straightforwardly is worse. (Also there's the back-compat issue.) Probably if we did this from the beginning, your way would make more sense, but with 'flex: auto' the way it is now, I'm not so sure. :/ Since we're arguing on usability, would be good to get some author feedback on the issue. Where do we find authors who understand Flexbox enough to grok this issue? :) ~fantasaiReceived on Tuesday, 4 November 2014 04:35:42 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:48 UTC