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

Re: [css3-flexbox] Editorial comments on ED 2012-07-04

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 00:32:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBwW=sTEWjSCzq3B9VBDeoo_jaN55XdMDpW2K2BzGfasg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 12:20 AM, Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net> wrote:
> Section 3 (New values for ‘display’ property) used to say in the ED
> 2012-04-20:
>
>   # * ‘float’ and ‘clear’ have no effect on a flexbox item. Using
>   #   ‘float’ on an element still causes that element's ‘display’
>   #   property to compute to ‘block’, as normal, because that occurs
>   #   before flexbox items are determined (the algorithm for wrapping
>   #   children of a flexbox into flexbox items needs the computed value
>   #   of ‘display’).
>
> but now it simply says:
>
>   # * ‘float’ and ‘clear’ have no effect on a flex item.
>
> I'm glad that the parenthetical has gone, but I'm confused by the removal of
> the details concerning the 'display' property.  I assume that 'float' still
> causes 'display' to compute to 'block', so I would prefer this item to say
> "... no effect on the layout of a flex item" or something similar.

Actually, the layout algorithm itself makes them compute into a
block-level display type now.  So there's no need to care about
'float' here.


> A nit:
>
> 4.1 (Flex Item Margins) says:
>
>   # The margins of adjacent flex items do not collapse. Auto margins
>   # absorb extra space in that dimension [...]
>
> which doesn't make grammatical sense since no prior dimension is referred
> to.  How about "Auto vertical and horizontal margins absorb extra space in
> the corresponding dimension [...]"

Sure.

~TJ
Received on Friday, 6 July 2012 07:33:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:56 GMT