W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2012

RE: [css3-flexbox] open issues in spec

From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 04:32:15 +0000
To: 'fantasai' <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D51C9E849DDD0D4EA38C2E539856928412EB15CF@TK5EX14MBXC214.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Made changes to ED:

> From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net]
> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 9:43 AM
> 
> On 02/23/2012 10:39 AM, Alex Mogilevsky wrote:
> >
> > *Issue 1:* Add "Canonical Order" fields to all the propdef tables, per
> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/format-update.
> >
> > What is it? I would do it but not sure what it means...
> 
> Anne requested it, to define the order of serialization when multiple reorderable
> values are present.

Moved to Bugzilla https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16141

> > *Issue 2:*Although the term "flexbox formatting context" is defined
> > here, it is not used anywhere else. BFC is the commonly used term for
> > what it means here. Perhaps this could say that flexbox formatting
> > context *is* a block formatting context, with different rules for how blocks
> are formatted but same protection from external floats etc. Then the terms can
> be used interchangeably, as they will be anyway...
> >
> > I put the issue there, in place of previous one. I don't care all that
> > much, can just remove it. The term is not very useful though, would be
> > good if there was a generic term...
> >
> > == How about we call it "formatting context" - just like BFC but not a block
> flow?
> 
> It's not a block formatting context. I think flexbox formatting context is the
> correct term to use here; I don't really see a problem with the wording in this
> paragraph.

OK, removed issue

> > *Issue 3: *Add a '|display:flexbox-item|' value, so I can do
> > flexbox-fixup (wrapping an anonymous flexbox around children that have
> declared themselves to be items).
> >
> > I am not too excited about creating yet another kind of fixup. Anonymous
> flexboxes don't seem too useful either.
> >
> > == Move to bugzilla for tracking?
> 
> Sure. Could defer to L2.

Issue removed. Bug opened: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16143 

> > *Issue 4: *For consistency with '|white-space|', we should use
> > '|nowrap|'. For consistency with '|text-wrap|', we should use 'none
> <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-flexbox/#flex-flow-none>'. 'none
> <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-flexbox/#flex-flow-none>'
> > is the less dumb of these. Can we switch both this and '|text-wrap|' to '|no-
> wrap|'
> >
> > == I like 'nowrap'. Change and resolve?
> 
> I'd prefer to keep it consistent with text-wrap, so we should change both to
> nowrap or have both as 'none'.

'none' looks weird in the shorthand 'flex-flow':

	flex-flow:row none;

makes way less sense than

	flex-flow:row nowrap;

I don't hear strong preference either way, renaming to 'nowrap'. If

> 
> > *Issue 7: *Currently there are no separate properties for pos-flex,
> > neg-flex or preferred size. If it doesn't change, there needs to be at
> > least CSS OM access to the separate values. Parsing space-separated list is
> easier than functional notation, but figuring out the used value for preferred size
> is still far from trivial.
> >
> > Issue from me. Not essential for LC.
> >
> > == To Bugzilla
> 
> This is a CSSOM issue: it applies to every property that takes multiple values.
>

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16145 

> > *Issue 8: *Finalize and define what happens to auto margin (main axis and
> cross axis).
> >
> > This is important, we really want to resolve one way or another and
> > settle. I see positive feedback for auto margins on main axis. Can live with any
> resolution.
> >
> > == propose: Cross-axis -- safe align, Main-axis -- distribute extra
> > space (if positive) after flex, before pack
> 
> Your proposal works for me. :)

Done

> 
> > *Issue 13: *[Change or remove the following CR exit criteria if the
> > spec is not a module, but, e.g., a Note or a profile. This text was
> > decided on 2008-06-04.
> > <http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Tracker/actions/44>]
> >
> > == remove the issue.
> 
> Yes.

removed
Received on Tuesday, 28 February 2012 04:32:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:51 GMT