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

Re: [css3-flexbox] Fixing the "replaced elements may or may not be inline" issue

From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 08:41:46 +0200
Message-ID: <4FE959AA.3010102@moonhenge.net>
To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
CC: Morten Stenshorne <mstensho@opera.com>, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
On 25/06/2012 14:21, Morten Stenshorne wrote:

> Regarding proposal C, I'm fine with that one. But I think this is what
> the spec used to say back in early May, and that it's the reason why
> we're having this discussion in the first place.

The trouble with C, as fantasai points out in [1], is that two adjacent 
inline images which fail to load will have their alt text glommed 
together into one (anonymous) flex item.  This seems pretty 
user-unfriendly.  The only reason we're trying to do magic here is to 
account for the fact that apparently authors aren't going to figure out 
that their buttons etc need to be set to display:inline-block; yet if 
they're not going to figure that out then I'm doubtful they're going to 
think particularly deeply about how to play safe in the case that images 
don't load. Hence C is a footgun, and the resulting guru recommendation 
for authors is likely to be to do something like

#div {display:flexbox}
#div > * {display:inline-block}

which is presumably what we're trying to avoid by having this discussion 
at all.  (Note that that recommendation is effectively an implementation 
of Proposal D.)

> So if C is not an option, I like proposal D. There needs to be an
> exception for absolutely positioned boxes there somehow, though?

Unexpectedly, I'm now coming around to proposal D as well.  It's not 
that I don't like B – I think we'll have to introduce it in future in 
any case – it's just that I think it's too early for it.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012May/0250.html

Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2012 06:42:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:00 UTC