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

[css3-flexbox] Abspos flex-item positions

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:50:19 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDB4zKU-rgkWtKf24Ht89HpUvyOeaduRVwUokk0OrpcB6w@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Cc: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, Morten Stenshorne <mstensho@opera.com>, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
Per our action item last week, we've defined the static position of
abspos flex items consistently with how they're handled in block and
inline flow:
  http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-flexbox/#abspos-items
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Jul/0605.html (minutes)

The WG just tasked us with defining it according to the resolutions,
so please give feedback. In particular, we'd appreciate implementors
(Alex, Daniel, Morten) reviewing the proposed text.

The solution we came up with is more-or-less Proposal D in the wiki
<http://wiki.csswg.org/topics/flex-abspos-placeholders>, with the edge
cases fully specified.

We ended up not using the concept of a "placeholder" at all here -
instead, the abspos item just participates in flex layout through the
'order' step, and then is ignored for the rest of flex layout.  This
implies that 'order' applies to the abspos.  We can explicitly
disallow this, but based on Brad Kemper's comments
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Jul/0628.html>, we
think the WG should revisit this decision.  (My objection to having
'order' apply during the call was about having it apply *to the
placeholder*.  I'm in favor of it applying to the abspos itself.)

In summary, all we're asking to do on the call is:
1. See if anyone objects to the current text.
2. Reverse the resolution about 'order' from last week.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2012 21:51:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:57 GMT