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

Re: [css3-flexbox] absolutely positioned flex item should not have side effect on space distribution

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:15:58 -0700
Message-Id: <2D1007BF-ED2C-4A8B-8583-D095D11998C2@gmail.com>
Cc: John Hax <johnhax@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>


On Jul 11, 2012, at 8:36 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:34 AM, John Hax <johnhax@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Absolutely positioned flex item should not have side effect on space
>> distribution. Since space-* is about distribute spaces evenly,
>> 
>>  A--B--C
>> 
>> with B absolutely positioned, should be rendered as
>> 
>>  A--C
>> 
>> , where B is positioned at the middle of A and C if all
>> 'top'/'bottom'/'right'/'left' are 'auto'ĄŁ
> 
> The current behavior, where it does have an effect, is a side-effect
> of abspos behavior.  It was done partially to be consistent with
> abspos behavior in other display modes where they're observable
> (abspos elements trigger the creation of an anonymous table-cell if
> they're nestled between two other display:table-cell elements), and
> partially to make it easier to define the "auto" position of abspos
> elements.

There is an Emerson quote about consistency. In this case, while consistency is usually positive for learn ability, understand ability, etc., it is creating a less useful situations in order to be consistent with something most people probably aren't even aware of. Can't we just say that the two equally sized spaces between three flexbox items become half width when the one in the middle is absolutely positioned?
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2012 16:16:28 GMT

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