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

RE: [css-flexbox] "applies to" inconsistency

From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 20:25:02 +0000
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
CC: "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5258A1A783764C478A36E2BC4A9C497E06B013@tk5ex14mbxc105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Ah, interesting, I didn't think about absolute vs. flow.

Float should certainly be ignored, and I think the spec says so.

Absolute may be expected to work. Then "make a guess at its probable position" may be a challenge....

Thanks
Alex

-----Original Message-----
From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of L. David Baron
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 1:10 PM
To: Alex Mogilevsky
Cc: www-style@w3.org list; Tab Atkins Jr.
Subject: Re: [css-flexbox] "applies to" inconsistency

On Tuesday 2010-05-11 19:45 +0000, Alex Mogilevsky wrote:
> This should be editorial. I see that some properties (e.g.
> 'box-flex') apply to "in-flow children of box elements". Others (e.g. 
> 'box-ordinal-group') apply to "children of box elements".
> 
> They should probably all apply to simply "children" as there isn't any 
> flow in a box element.

Well, there's the question of what happens if a child of a flexbox is floated or absolutely positioned.

My inclination would probably be that floating simply doesn't do anything, but that we might want absolute positioning to work... in which case the absolutely positioned children would be out-of-flow.

-David

-- 
L. David Baron                                 http://dbaron.org/
Mozilla Corporation                       http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2010 20:25:37 GMT

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