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

On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Robert O'Callahan<robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
> 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.

...

Indeed I was talking about box-flex-group!

~TJ

Received on Monday, 27 July 2009 00:45:18 UTC