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

Re: [css3-flexbox] handling whitespace between items in a flexbox (with interesting values of "white-space" property

From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 09:23:52 +0800
Message-ID: <4F7116A8.1090607@csail.mit.edu>
To: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
CC: WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
(12/03/27 8:34), Daniel Holbert wrote:
> PROPOSAL:
> I'd argue that the "white-space" property should make flexboxes treat
> whitespace as follows:
> 
>  - For the values 'normal', 'nowrap', and 'pre-line', a stretch of of
> whitespace is *insufficient* to generate an anonymous flexbox item.
> 
>  - For the values 'pre' and 'pre-wrap': a stretch of whitespace is
> *sufficient* to generate an anonymous flexbox item.

I'd like to see all these values to be treated the same for flexbox item
generation: a stretch of of whitespace never generates an anonymous
flexbox item.

This is consistent with how CSS 2.1 handles whitespaces in between
'table-*' too. It seems just weird if specifying 'white-space' on a
flexbox would not only propogate that value to all flexbox items but
also drastically change item generation, and I don't yet see why Web
Developers would expect that behavior.

> I think the only point of potential contention might be the behavior of
> 'pre-line', for which CSS2.1 says "lines are broken at preserved newline
> characters" (but whitespace is otherwise collapsed).  With that value,
> one could argue that since newlines are preserved, we should create an
> anonymous flexbox item around whitespace if that whitespace contains a
> newline.  However, that behavior doesn't seem more confusing than useful
> to me, and I don't think it merits the special-case code that it'd require.

The simple solution also makes this question disappear.

> Thoughts?

Having said above, specifying 'white-space' on a flexbox seems uncommon
to the point that I think what's the easiest way to implement this might
actually be better from the point of a little browser user (because that
makes this feature ship faster).

So is your proposal the easiest way to implement this in Gecko? If
that's the case, I think it's acceptable to me too.


Cheers,
Kenny
Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2012 01:24:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 03:48:53 GMT