Re: [CSS3] Flexible Flow Module, proposal.

On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 5:14 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> Robert, what's your opinion on this vs the existing XUL flexboxes in FF?
>

I mostly agree with Hyatt's latest message.

Flex units are cool and give some extra power, and avoid the need for
alignment and packing properties. But they're not yet a replacement for what
XUL flexboxes can do. I think the biggest limitation is not being able to
set width to "intrinsic width plus flex". The limitations can probably be
fixed, although the fixes might add complexity or ugliness.

XUL flexbox ordinals are very rarely used, as far as I can tell, and their
omission is probably OK. We don't actually support flex-groups in Gecko
today so their omission is OK for us.

I want to be able to map XUL flexboxes naturally into any 'flex' proposal
the group comes up with, partly for the selfish reason of not having to
maintain two flex layout systems, but also because XUL-style flexboxes are
quite well known among authors (e.g. Firefox extension developers and Adobe
"Flex" developers). If Andrew's proposal reaches that point, it could be a
good option.

We need to do major surgery on our flexbox code anyway (see
http://bonsai.mozilla.org/cvsblame.cgi?file=mozilla/layout/xul/base/src/nsSprocketLayout.cpp&rev=1.69&mark=695-696#695...)
Implementing a new flex module based on a solid WG draft and then
mapping XUL onto it could be attractive.

Rob
-- 
"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah
53:5-6]