Skip to content

[css-flex-1] Use more appropriate word than "sucks" #2431

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
Nadya678 opened this issue Mar 11, 2018 · 6 comments
Closed

[css-flex-1] Use more appropriate word than "sucks" #2431

Nadya678 opened this issue Mar 11, 2018 · 6 comments

Comments

@Nadya678
Copy link

https://www.w3.org/TR/css-flexbox-1/#item-margins

"Note: This variance sucks, but it accurately captures the current state"

@frivoal frivoal added the css-flexbox-1 Current Work label Mar 11, 2018
@SelenIT
Copy link
Collaborator

SelenIT commented Mar 11, 2018

@Nadya678, this whole issue has been resolved in #2085. The whole note about the "variance" has been removed from both [css-flex-1] and [css-grid-1] specs, since the single option for calculating margins/paddings of flex/grid items has been chosen. All browsers decided to switch to Chrome's behavior.

P.S. Please cite the latest Editor's drafts (e.g. https://drafts.csswg.org/css-flexbox/#item-margins), which usually incorporate the most recent edits, instead of /TR/ publications, which can be rather outdated.

@tabatkins
Copy link
Member

Not to mention, "sucks" accurately captured the suckitude of the variance.

@MatsPalmgren
Copy link

All browsers decided to switch to Chrome's behavior.

Well, that's a I nice euphemism... The harsh truth is that Chrome's developers refused to implement what the specification said (which was a consensus decision in the CSSWG, btw) thereby forcing other UAs to change for web-compatibility reasons. Shame on them.

@tabatkins
Copy link
Member

It definitely was not a WG consensus, pretty much by definition, as Chrome/WebKit disagreed with Firefox/Edge. Please don't rewrite history.

@MatsPalmgren
Copy link

MatsPalmgren commented Mar 12, 2018

They disagreed after the decision was made. Meanwhile they shipped an intentionally non-conformant implementation thereby establishing fait accompli due to their dominant market position. Then the spec was updated to allow either behavior. Please don't rewrite history.

@w3c w3c locked as too heated and limited conversation to collaborators Mar 12, 2018
@astearns
Copy link
Member

Find some other venue if you want to continue this.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

7 participants