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

Re: [css3-flexbox] getting multiline flexbox back into the spec

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:17:26 -0700
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <20110727201726.GA5991@pickering.dbaron.org>
On Wednesday 2011-07-27 09:54 -0700, L. David Baron wrote:
> That said, an alternative here is to make wrapping control part of
> this property.

Continuing in that vein, I said in the meeting that I'd propose an
additional option.  If we *do* make wrapping control part of the
direction property, I have a simpler option that I think also meets
all of the requirements.  This is making the value syntax simply:
  [ tb | bt | lr | rl | block | block-reverse | inline | inline-reverse ]{1,2}
with the initial value being 'inline'.

When one value is provided, or when two values are provided that
resolve to parallel or antiparallel directions, the first value is
used for the main axis, there is no wrapping, and the cross axis
does not have an associated cross direction.

When two values are provided and their directions are perpendicular
to each other, the first value is the main direction and the second
value is the cross (wrapping) direction.

This does have the disadvantage that some of the two-value options
have their second value ignored when it doesn't make sense, but it
controls wrapping and both directions with just two values, and does
allow mixed logical and absolute directions, which seems to be a
requirement based on our discussion in the meeting.

It also has the disadvantage that the way of specifying wrapping
would normally be 'inline block' or 'block inline', which is a
little odd-sounding.

-David

-- 
𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla Corporation               http://www.mozilla.com/   𝄂
Received on Wednesday, 27 July 2011 20:44:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:42 GMT