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

RE: Flexbox Draft, with pictures!

From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 17:13:29 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5258A1A783764C478A36E2BC4A9C497E0C1FA3@tk5ex14mbxc105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Tab Atkins Jr.
> Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 10:06 AM
> > 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.

Actually I don't see anything difficult there.
- "pack" has any effect only after any flex distribution is exhausted and there is still empty space.
- "align" has to deal with non-zero margins and padding already; if those are calculated using flex or anything else it doesn't change any of align code.

Or is there something I don't see?

Received on Tuesday, 1 June 2010 17:14:06 GMT

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