- From: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 14:42:22 -0700
- To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- CC: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 05/31/2012 02:18 PM, Alex Mogilevsky wrote: > It would make "flex:1 -1 100px" look cool and we certainly can do that. It would however create the first ever precedent of a property taking negative values only. And its meaning is not really "negative", it is ability to shrink... > > Maybe we should just use a different word in the spec? Perhaps just: s/positive flex ratio/flex grow ratio/ s/negative flex ratio/flex shrink ratio/ with appropriate massaging of contextual text? (e.g. "If the sign of the free space matches the sign of the flexibility" would perhaps get s/matches the sign/matches the type/.) I don't think there's any reason for the spec to talk about these as "positive" vs. "negative" ratios anymore, especially now that they have their own properties that use the "grow"/"shrink" terminology. Any signed-ness really comes from the amount of free space, and then we select the grow or the shrink ratio based on that sign. The ratio itself is always nonnegative (and could always be 0 -- neither negative nor positive), and calling it a "negative ratio" vs. "positive ratio" confuses that fact. ~Daniel
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2012 21:42:52 UTC