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

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

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <andrew.fedoniouk@live.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 19:29:16 -0700
Message-ID: <BLU165-ds8663757019DC2FC63159CF8360@phx.gbl>
To: "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
>-----Original Message----- 
>From: fantasai Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 10:47 AM To: Andrew Fedoniouk 
>Cc: Andrew Fedoniouk ; www-style@w3.org Subject: Re: [css3-flexbox] getting 
>multiline flexbox back into the spec
>On 07/28/2011 10:18 PM, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
>>> -----Original Message----- From: fantasai Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 
>>> 2:25 PM To: www-style@w3.org Subject: Re:
>>> [css3-flexbox] getting multiline flexbox back into the spec
>>> On 07/26/2011 08:09 PM, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
>>>> We should ask people who use ttb writings what kind of meaning they
>>>> assign to 'row' and 'column' terms. I suspect that 'row' is still 
>>>> something
>>>> that is horizontally oriented. As 'column' is something vertical no 
>>>> matter what.
>>> This shift needs to happen for tables anyway, so we might as
>>> well take advantage of that and make the terms consistent
>>> throughout.
>> In tables <tr> is a row no matter what. Are you saying
>> that <tr> (table row) may go in "column direction" ?
><tr> represents a row in the inline dimension, which in a 
>document would be vertical rather than horizontal.
>This is perfectly normal behavior for vertical writing systems.

Yes, row in inline direction is perfectly normal.
But row that goes in row direction is a perfect tautolgy.

Andrew Fedoniouk

Received on Saturday, 30 July 2011 02:29:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:48 UTC