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

Re: [css3-flexbox] reasons for flex-order being <number> instead of <integer>?

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 16:28:11 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAydTdSAz5OEnOOQx-MipAxrsBM0fCtmjaZAv0eb4RxHg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Hi www-style,
>
> In the current flexbox ED, flex-order is defined as a <number> -- I'm
> curious, why does it use <number> and not <integer>?
>
> Note that the examples in the spec all use integer values.  Also, the
> somewhat-similar "z-index" property takes <integer> values[1], and it seems
> like it'd be nice to be consistent with that property.  (A much earlier
> version of the flexbox spec also used <integer> for the predecessor to this
> property, "box-ordinal-group".[2])
>
> Thanks in advance, and sorry if I'm rehashing earlier discussion. I did do a
> bit of searching to see if this had been discussed before -- I found
> confirmation that the choice of <number> is intentional[3] but I couldn't
> find the reasoning behind that.
>
> ~Daniel
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#z-index
> [2]
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-css3-flexbox-20090723/#propdef-box-ordinal-group
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Aug/0636.html

For some reason I thought z-index accepted a <number>.

It seems more convenient to have a <number>, because it's easier to
slot things between other things.  It's not a big deal, though, and
I'm fine with being consistent with z-index.

Anyone else have any particular opinions about this?

~TJ
Received on Friday, 28 October 2011 23:29:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:45 GMT