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, 17 May 2010 21:04:09 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTine8adXjPfPbL2NOIFKsxjIm-ocS72-Ceg7Af6u@mail.gmail.com>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, 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>
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 6:37 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> On Monday 2010-05-17 15:17 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I think flexboxes should establish new block formatting contexts (as
> table cells do).  It doesn't make sense for floats inside them to
> try to move outside of them.

So both the flexbox and its children are BFCs, then, right?

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2010 06:44:57 GMT

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