W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2016

Re: [css-flexbox] rationale for definite size conditions

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 18:10:05 -0400
To: Christian Biesinger <cbiesinger@google.com>
Cc: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5702E63D.3020800@inkedblade.net>
On 04/04/2016 05:58 PM, Christian Biesinger wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 5:44 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
>>
>> The definition in CSS Sizing *does* cover it:
>>
>> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-sizing-3/#definite
>>    # A size that can be determined without measuring content;
>>    # that is, a <length>, a size of the initial containing block,
>>    # or a <percentage> or other formula (such the “fill-available”
>>    # sizing of non-replaced blocks [CSS21]) that is resolved solely
>>    # against definite sizes.
>>
>> If the flex basis is definite, and the item is inflexible, then
>> the item's flexed flexed size is also definite.
>
> I get that for each individual case this can eventually be deduced
> from the definition but it really seems like such a generic definition
> seems to make it harder for implementors and thus for
> interoperability, as compared to an exhaustive list.

We think it's better to have a generic definition, because trying
to make an exhaustive list is much more likely to fail.

~fantasai
Received on Monday, 4 April 2016 22:10:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:02 UTC