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

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

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <andrew.fedoniouk@live.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 23:50:30 -0700
Message-ID: <BLU165-ds15F0FE98F7F60E0D2EC601F8620@phx.gbl>
To: "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
-----Original Message----- 
>From: fantasai Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 10:50 PM To: www-style@w3.org 
>Subject: Re: [css3-flexbox] getting multiline flexbox back into the spec
>On 06/08/2011 01:06 PM, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
>>
>>
>> If we really want to provide explicit definition of order of blocks
>> then it can be done as:
>> block-flow: horizontal; /* uses default directionality, @dir->direction 
>> */
>> block-flow: horizontal-ltr; /* left-to-right */
>> block-flow: horizontal-rtl; /* right-to-left */
>>
>> block-flow: vertical; /* uses default directionality: ttb */
>> block-flow: vertical-ttb; /* top-to-bottom */
>> block-flow: vertical-btt; /* bottom-to-top */
>>
>> Explicit declaration as 'horizontal-ltr' is significantly more reliable
>> than anything like 'direction:horizontal reverse'
>
>While I agree that we should have a way to explicitly say 'horizontal-ltr',
>I'm not so certain that logical backwardness isn't needed. I can't think
>of a use case for backwards ordering in the inline dimension, but I can
>see backwards ordering being useful in the block direction when you have
>columns.

I assume that columns are defined as:

  block-flow: vertical-wrap;

then if you want to define full set of progressions we will probably
need to use parametric form of LM defintiion:

  block-flow: vertical-wrap[(ttb | btt [, ltr | rtl ])];

that will define all possible configurations.

I don't think that logical directions make sense in CSS at all.
They just complicate CSS usage a lot. I said couple of times here that CSS
should just have pseudo-classes :ltr, :rtl, :ttb that are set from
@dir.  In this case we can define:

.toolbar:rtl
{
  block-flow: horizontal(rtl); // or just block-flow: horizontal
  horizontal-align: right;
}

Explicit definitions are always better (manageable) than
bunch of nested after/before, start/end, reverse/non-reverse, etc.

>
>> By the way, you used keyword 'reverse'. It is 'reverse' to what actually?
>> I mean what exactly defines normal, non-reversed order then, the 
>> 'direction'?
>
>Yes.

If "yes" then it means direction of block-flow is governed by the
'direction'. At least in default form. And 'direction' is not just a
text direction but "UI-directionality", right?

-- 
Andrew Fedoniouk

http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2011 06:50:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:41 GMT