W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2009

Re: [CSS3] Flexible Flow Module, proposal.

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 17:44:23 +1200
Message-ID: <11e306600904102244i1efb3535kb3add5cfbaa7a41b@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com
> wrote:

> Here is our proposal for the new module named Flexible Flow:
>
> http://www.terrainformatica.com/w3/flex-layout/flex-layout.htm
>

I quite like it.

As well as adding text to make it clear that 'float' does not apply to flow
children, you should also mention that 'clear' is not relevant when flow is
not 'default' or 'horizontal-flow' or 'vertical-flow'.

Actually, one thing I don't like is the way 'flow' mutates a block into
something that's really quite different. It would feel better to me if there
were new 'display' values, say 'flow' and 'inline-flow', and 'flow' only
applies when one of those is set. You wouldn't need 'flow:default'.

Regarding naming, the property 'flow:horizontal-flow' uses the word 'flow'
in two different ways. Maybe 'horizontal-wrap' would be a better term.

You don't explicitly mention the order in which flow children are placed
(top to bottom, bottom to top, left to right, right to left). XUL flexboxes
let authors control this, and you probably should too, maybe via additional
flow values?

There seems to be no way to set the width of a flow child to the intrinsic
width plus some flex (or a specified width plus some flex). That seems like
a big limitation. In some cases you can use flex padding or margins to get
the effect, but sometimes you want the element to be able to lay out its
children in the extra width. Is there an easy way to fix that?

I don't understand this:
> All non-bound children of the templated container are appended to the grid
as if they span
> a single row in it.
You haven't said anything about how the template is actually laid out. You
introduce the '*' unit without really defining it. This seems like the
weakest part of your proposal, does it really need to be integrated here?

Rob
-- 
"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah
53:5-6]
Received on Saturday, 11 April 2009 05:45:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 03:46:58 GMT