L. David Baron wrote:

My solution (@flow + flex units) solve multiple existing problems: 1) vertical alignment and positioning 2) flex layouts. 3) real sidebar/statusbar/toolbar layouts.

And your solution appears as a foreign entity for CSS. Here is an example from document you have provided: button { box-flex: 1.0; width: 100px; }

So what is the width of the button? Is it defined by @box-flex or by the @width? And how all this plays with min/max-widths?

To avoid any logical conflicts it should be just:

button { width: 1*; }

with optional min/max-widths.

I've implemented flex units in the engine that supports CSS2.1 pretty much in full. flex units implementation is around 2500 lines in total (C++). Flex units can be added in *any* existing CSS engine. Particular mileage for particular engine may vary but magnitude is as such.

David, I have an impression that time to *start with* flexes passed years ago. And yet I do not think that CSS as a public standard has such luxury to "start with something simpler". Either flexes are there either not.

My solution (@flow + flex units) solve multiple existing problems: 1) vertical alignment and positioning, 2) flex layouts, 3) real sidebar/statusbar/toolbar layouts.

My solution is simpler in the following sense:

Each new attribute added to CSS potentially adds new dimension to the CSS space. Each attribute may affect others.

For example: by adding 'box-direction' you effectively create construction orthogonal to say 'direction' attribute. You need to spec and implement full matrix of intersection of their values. The same is about all other attributes you propose.

That is why I wouldn't say that your solution is less complex than mine.

http://terrainformatica.com