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

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

From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 22:56:21 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, Adam Del Vecchio <adam.delvecchio@go-techo.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5258A1A783764C478A36E2BC4A9C497E07D47B@tk5ex14mbxc105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
I think that would be the right thing to do. I am not even sure what it could mean for it to not be BFC.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 3:17 PM
To: Alex Mogilevsky
Cc: Andrew Fedoniouk; robert@ocallahan.org; Adam Del Vecchio; www-style@w3.org
Subject: Re: Fw: RE: [css-flexbox] Summary of planned changes to Flexbox Module

On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 2:52 PM
>>
>> If this is a problem, you just make the flexbox a BFC, so it won't overlap the float.
>
> Are you suggesting Flexbox currently is not BFC?

The current Flexbox draft says nothing about it, so I was going with the assumption that it wasn't.  I can change that assumption if it doesn't make sense for it to not be a BFC.

~TJ

Received on Monday, 17 May 2010 22:57:00 GMT

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