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

Re: Box Reordering

From: James Robinson <jamesr@chromium.org>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 18:08:30 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTimC7FmuZb-IUqx4E0rAYcy9C-TP1E3NT2N6ppEI@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
How is that statement any different when applied only to flexbox?

- James

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>wrote:

> It would be a good idea to contain reordering within flexbox. Even there it
> seems optional. Applying it everywhere sounds interesting but it is a major
> complication for implementation and would need strong use cases.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On
> > Behalf Of Tab Atkins Jr.
> > Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 4:53 PM
> > To: www-style list
> > Subject: Box Reordering
> >
> > One of my coworkers was looking at my new flexbox draft, and asked me
> > why flex-index was limited to flexbox children only.
> >
> > I didn't have a good answer for him.  Flex units are limited to flexbox
> > children, because they don't work properly in normal flow (so far - I'm
> > interested in seeing if we can do something reasonable with them later).
>  But
> > does content-reordering cause any similar problems?
> >
> > It would certainly be *confusing* given a lot of current spec text that
> plays
> > loose with the distinction between elements and boxes.  But I suspect
> that
> > it's doable.  It may have to wait for a proper spec detailing the
> creation and
> > structure of the box-tree from the element-tree, though, so we can
> > unambiguously talk about element-tree order and display-tree order.
> >
> > Does this sound like something vaguely reasonable?  Should I worry about
> > renaming flex-index to box-index to allow for this ability in the future?
> > Should I leave it alone, and just define flex-index as a synonym for
> box-index
> > if we end up doing this later?
> >
> > ~TJ
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 25 May 2010 06:53:09 GMT

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