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

Re: Box Reordering

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 10:55:59 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinJ0tAna9WBSPWj1o-Yc7UUFgXRGnLloltYLSvm@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, James Robinson <jamesr@chromium.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
I think there is a strong need for box reordering, based on my own
experience as an author.  I think the need is particularly strong in
applications, but still mildly useful in documents.  However, I'm
willing to admit that CSS might not be the correct level for this.
XSLT has its own problems (namely, being and requiring XML), but
perhaps some other solution can be created for this.  The feature is
independent of the other flexbox-related features, at least.

~TJ

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com> wrote:
> This is a good argument for cutting it. It is true that any use case for
> box-ordinal-group applies just as well to divs or floats. In all these cases
> it I a baby step towards what XSLT does (and that is usually the direction
> we don’t encourage for CSS). And all these cases are easily solved by
> script.
>
>
>
> From: Brad Kemper [mailto:brad.kemper@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 7:19 AM
> To: Alex Mogilevsky
> Cc: James Robinson; Tab Atkins Jr.; www-style list
> Subject: Re: Box Reordering
>
>
>
> Why is reordering more important for flexbox than for table cells or
> inline-blocks or maybe even floated blocks? I understand wanting to limit
> the scope, but I don't see why flexboxes should be the corner of CSS to have
> this super-feature, instead of in other display/flow models.
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 24, 2010, at 6:24 PM, Alex Mogilevsky wrote:
>
> Not really. As it is, having reordering in Flexbox complicates
> implementation.
>
>
>
> I predict that somebody will fill a Flexbox with thousands of items and then
> use box-ordinal-group for sorting, and expect reasonable performance. Then
> Flexbox layout not only needs a secondary storage for child order and
> quicksort. Neither is rocket science, but if it needs to be there it really
> should have a strong reason.
>
>
>
> I am not saying there is no reason for it. But I personally don’t think
> there is a strong reason for it.
>
>
>
> From: jamesr@google.com [mailto:jamesr@google.com] On Behalf Of James
> Robinson
> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 6:09 PM
> To: Alex Mogilevsky
> Cc: Tab Atkins Jr.; www-style list
> Subject: Re: Box Reordering
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 25 May 2010 17:56:52 GMT

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