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

Re: [css3-flexbox] Is painting order affected by 'flex-order'?

From: Tony Chang <tony@chromium.org>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 10:49:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL-=4P1UmBRx9Ye5iAufnvDusXhJPPZ2QjQsB+TM29kRQL8wPQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
> wrote:
> > I asked this exact question back in January:
> >
> >  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Jan/1232.html
> >
> > and it appeared that we settled on flex-order _not_ affecting painting
> order:
> >
> >  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Jan/1241.html
> >
> > and as a result, we have this text in the spec right now:
> >
> >  # ‘flex-order’ has no effect on stacking/layering; elements must
> >  # still be drawn over/under each other based on document order,
> >  # ‘z-index’, and other relevant means.
> >
> > I prefer this behavior (no effect on painting order), but I'm OK with it
> > either way.  (though we should be sure that flexbox & grid end up being
> > consistent on this)
>
> Argh, I remember that conversation now.  I'd forgotten about that spec
> text. >_<
>
> Welp, we have inconsistent impls now.  Let me check with Ojan and Tony
> to see if they object to changing the impl.  If they don't, then there
> was never an issue to resolve.
>

It shouldn't be too hard to change the implementation, but it seems like
painting in flex-order would be less confusing.  That is, if I change
order, I would still expect the first flex item (visually) to be painted
first.
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2012 17:49:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:54 GMT