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

Re: [css3-flexbox] Computed value and flex-align/flex-item-align.

From: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 13:29:51 -0800
Message-ID: <CANMdWTtvU+hz8kn_8o7xL3Nc-TdU=dD81d1F6yBQsk1fEEo0-A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style@w3.org
Why not just always compute to the parent's flex-align? Does it matter if
the parent is a flexbox or not for the sake of computing the value of
flex-item-align?

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>wrote:

> Actually, I take back my "on a flexbox item" suggested-text, because it's
> technically not easy to determine whether we're a flexbox item or not from
> inside the style system (as discussed in one of the "float" threads earlier
> this week).
>
> However, it is easy to determine if we're the child of a flexbox.  So
> maybe this added prefix should be "On the child of a flexbox, ..." or
> something like that.
>
> Thanks,
> ~Daniel
>
>
> On 01/26/2012 12:00 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Daniel Holbert<dholbert@mozilla.com>
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> (inserting [css3-flexbox] into subject)
>>>
>>> I've got a (probably trivial) followup question on this.
>>>
>>> The ED now says that flex-item-align's computed value is as follows:
>>>
>>>> ‘auto’ computes to flexbox's ‘flex-align’; otherwise as specified
>>>>
>>> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-**flexbox/#flex-item-align<http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-flexbox/#flex-item-align>
>>>
>>> What should "auto" compute to for elements that *aren't* inside of a
>>> flexbox? (in which case there is no flexbox to derive the "flexbox's
>>> ‘flex-align’" from)
>>>
>>> I'm guessing that it'd just compute to "auto", yes?  If so, perhaps the
>>> spec
>>> could be changed to clarify this like so:
>>>
>>>> on a flexbox item, ‘auto’ computes to the flexbox's
>>>> ‘flex-align’; otherwise as specified
>>>>
>>> (just inserting "on a flexbox item" at the beginning)
>>>
>>
>> Good catch.  That sounds reasonable.
>>
>> ~TJ
>>
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2012 21:30:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:49 GMT