W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2011

Re: [css3-flexbox] Argh, architectural problems

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <andrew.fedoniouk@live.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 22:15:38 -0800
Message-ID: <BLU159-ds123FA5AE7D95A9C4DF3670F8FB0@phx.gbl>
To: "Sylvain Galineau" <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>
"...nice to have a clear set of layout use-cases the module is supposed to 
solve..."

All cases in section 3.** here:
http://www.terrainformatica.com/w3/flex-layout/flex-layout.htm

This is the must that CSS should have and what that flex module shall cover.
System of flex units and the flow property covers typical UI layouts of
modern applications. It also covers (I believe) all layout managers defined
in Java/Swing/AWT, XUL and XAML frameworks.

See this for example:
http://download.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/uiswing/layout/visual.html
this system exists 10 or so years and reproduced in pretty much all
frameworks that followed Java. In one form or another.
I do not see why CSS shall be an exception here.

I suspect that most of people on the list are lucky to be
in distance from real life CSS designs. Otherwise flow/flexes would
be module of higher priority.

Real life CSS developers waste a lot of time fighting with trivial
flow: horizontal for multi column layouts. Some of them are writing
essays and master theses on how to create multiple columns
of equal height in CSS. See this for example:
http://www.positioniseverything.net/articles/onetruelayout/
And this ugliness happens 10 years so far ...
And we still asking for "nice to have use cases...", eh?

-- 
Andrew Fedoniouk

http://terrainformatica.com



-----Original Message----- 
From: Sylvain Galineau
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 11:51 AM
To: Tab Atkins Jr. ; www-style list
Subject: RE: [css3-flexbox] Argh, architectural problems

It'd be *very* nice to have a clear set of layout use-cases the module is 
supposed to solve. I don't know how we can get to something that 'feels' 
right without that. If we don't spell those out clearly - or worse, don't 
even agree on what they are - 'blue-sky theorizing' is indeed likely to be a 
significant part of what we'll achieve.
Received on Saturday, 22 January 2011 06:16:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:36 GMT