W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2010

Re: Flexbox Draft, with pictures!

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 10:05:36 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTikA0lLkNzBpLg_3Dt-Yz66ZNNXnwwKKIeBx7evA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Cc: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com> wrote:
> I think a stronger argument for flex units would be making some future
> modules less hypothetical by at least having a sketch design for them. In
> particular, we know that every grid layout (e.g. XUL, XAML or tables) uses
> some sort of proportional units. Addition of a new kind of grid to CSS seems
> inevitable, it would be very interesting to see how the flex units as they
> are being defined would look there. I have some ideas here, will try to put
> something together soon.

That would be very interesting to see!


> Actually eliminating box-align or box-pack – I don’t think that’s necessary.
> These are intuitive and don’t complicate implementation, even if the same
> can be done in a different way.

But how does it work with flex units?  pack/align are top-down layout
strategies, while flex units are bottom-up.  The two are in conflict
by default, unless you specify pack/align in terms of setting default
values for some flexible lengths.

That's not going to be easy, though, since the default values for
margin and padding are 0, not 'auto' - that seems inconsistent with
magic behavior based on pack/align.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 1 June 2010 17:06:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:28 GMT