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

Re: Fw: RE: [css-flexbox] Summary of planned changes to Flexbox Module

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 09:01:55 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinEj2jzRPrTWSCyGoskbJsIc693AHwh4go6aidK@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Del Vecchio <adam.delvecchio@go-techo.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> flexbox-order: <integer> (1)

I realized after sending this mail that the property is z-index, not
z-order (I get that wrong all the time in my stylesheets).  So let's
change this to "flexbox-index: <integer> (0)".

Now, a question of intuitiveness.  In z-index, higher numbers make
boxes show up on top, or "first" conceptually.  Lower numbers are
*painted* first, though.  Which is the most intuitive notion of
"first" here?  That is, would you expect a higher or lower number to
put a given flexbox child first?

I'm slightly leaning toward higher numbers coming first, because I
think it is slightly unintuitive that you have to write code like
this:

ul { display: flex; }
li { width: fit-content; margin: 1fl; }
li.current { flex-index: -1; }

...to create a tabbed display where the "current" tab moves to the
front.  To get more intuitive numbers you have to explicitly set the
flex-index of plain <li>s too.

But I dunno.  Perhaps this is the more intuitive way.  I don't have a
strong opinion either way.

~TJ
Received on Monday, 10 May 2010 16:02:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:27 GMT