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

Re: [css3-flexbox] spec review notes

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:12:41 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBDUbTYWu=L39P7jf5+M=fVjC4HgpCwi=QvPt9Q019bjA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com]
>>Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 10:14 AM
>>> -- 1.1 new values for 'display'
>>>     # 'column-*' values compute to their initial values
>>> Why are multicol values singled out here? Are there no other
>>> properties that don't apply?
>>> Is there a case for actually computing these values differently vs.
>>> ignoring?
>>No, either way would work.  I thought it made slightly more sense to
>>compute them to their initial since they're *required* to have no effect,
>>but simply ignoring them is fine.  I can switch if you'd like.
> I would prefer ignoring. Having a special case for computing differently is OK if it makes difference somewhere, e.g. for inheritance. If not, letting them compute as usual is safer. There will be more non-applicable properties in the future, not touching them at all will be consistent.

All right, I've switched to ignoring.

>>> -- 2.2.1. Positioning Absolutely Positioned Flexbox Items
>>>     # These placeholders are anonymous inline boxes with a width and
>>> height of ‘0px’
>>> Are they actually zero height or default line height? Maybe zero
>>> height is correct, just want to check.
>>I'm not sure.  They're required to not affect the line height, but that's
>>all I know.
> I'll see if I can come up with a test.


> Good. It could also say "or shrinks proportionally to negative flexibility".

Good idea.  Done.

>>> -- EXAMPLE 7
>>>     # By using a vertical flexbox and ‘flex-align’, we can emulate the
>>> functionality of HTML's <center> element:
>>> Actually not exactly, "flex-align:center" is "true center", right?
>>Sure, it's not exact, but it's pretty close.
> Ok, it's awesome that we finally have a way to implement <center>!
> It would be more correct to say "behavior similar to the deprecated <center> element"

Ok, I've tweaked the wording.

> Maybe the alignment section should mention that if items overflow in cross direction exactly same rules apply (so that it is clear that overflow case is not overlooked and true-center is intentional)?

I couldn't think of what to put in a note here, so I've not changed
anything so far.

Received on Monday, 30 January 2012 21:13:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:54 UTC