Re: [css3-flexbox] New WD "CSS Flexible Box Layout"

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Robert O'Callahan<robert@ocallahan.org>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 2:27 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> The one thing that I noticed I've done with floats but can't reproduce
> >> with flexboxes is having two sets of boxes, one packed to the left and
> >> the other packed to the right.  I believe that XUL devs usually use a
> >> <spacer> with a higher box-ordinal to achieve this effect, right?
> >
> > They usually use a spacer and manually order the content. box-ordinal is
> > almost never used by XUL developers. I suppose it might find more use on
> the
> > Web, where you have to deal with fallback in other browsers and a
> stronger
> > separation of style from content --- but I think the value of box-ordinal
> is
> > still an open question at this point.
>
> Yeah, a non-flexing box basically has -infinity box-ordinal.
>
> I agree that, as written, box ordinal seems essentially useless.
> Right now the highest-ordinal boxes are allowed to suck up all of the
> extra space, leaving the lesser-ordinal boxes no space at all,
> essentially making them box-flex:0.  Is it required that boxes suck up
> the extra space in exactly the proportion specified?  Frex, if you
> have two boxes with the same box-flex, but an odd number of free
> pixels to distribute, is there a single pixel left over to distribute
> to lesser-ordinal boxes?
>

Sorry, I think we're mixing up box-ordinal-group and box-flex-group. You're
talking about box-flex-group, I was talking about box-ordinal-group.

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]