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: Morten Stenshorne <mstensho@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 09:43:09 +0200
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: John Hax <johnhax@gmail.com>, www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <874now70c2.fsf@aeneas.oslo.osa>
fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> writes:

> On 07/24/2012 12:17 AM, Morten Stenshorne wrote:
> (My guess is, absolute positioning a table cell is definitely a corner
> case; but we expect flex layout to be used for a lot more different/
> crazy things than table layout

"More crazy things than table layout". Good one. ;)

>> Allowing abspos boxes to live inside of a non-container sounds
>> unpleasant (A / B), not only on the implementation side, but it also
>> requires you to spec a lot of things. Cross position? Is it stretched?
>> Flexed? Order?
>> It looks like B attempts to give the element "the position an element
>> would have had in the normal flow" [1]. But then I think it should
>> rather say that the static position is identical to that of the next
>> flex item (or, if there is no next, then at main-end? Unless there's no
>> preceding flex item, in which case we could pick main-start?). And then
>> some justify-content stuff. That was the main axis position. What about
>> cross axis position? Honor align-items/align-self (obviously in a way
>> that doesn't affect the cross size of the flexbox or its lines)?
>> My preferences:
>> C>  world-wide coffee ban>  B ~ A
>> A is simpler than B, but behavior A almost sounds like a bug report. :)
> Where does your proposal (D) fit in this list? :)

Oh. I was hoping that everyone would agree with me that the original B
is wrong and that it needs my modification. :)

But okay: C > D > B > A

> Also, what about a modified (C) where the justification space between a
> preceding flex item and a placeholder item is suppressed? I think that
> would satisfy all concerns, really.

It's mildly magical ("this item is immune to space-between and
space-around"), but sure it could work. Much better than A and B.

To clarify: is C about wrapping the abspos into an anonymous flex item?
I certainly hope so, but "placeholder" somehow sounds more scary than
something as simple as that.

---- Morten Stenshorne, developer, Opera Software ASA ----
---- Office: +47 23692400 ------ Mobile: +47 93440112 ----
------------------ http://www.opera.com/ -----------------
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2012 07:43:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:01 UTC