W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2010

Re: Fw: RE: [css-flexbox] Summary of planned changes to Flexbox ?Module

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 10:18:15 +1200
Message-ID: <AANLkTimyuVaZAR0k_8BBHTD5Ur0RqC5Vpf26zaYpGNVR@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Adam Del Vecchio <adam.delvecchio@go-techo.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 4:01 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> Now, a question of intuitiveness.  In z-index, higher numbers make
> boxes show up on top, or "first" conceptually.  Lower numbers are
> *painted* first, though.  Which is the most intuitive notion of
> "first" here?  That is, would you expect a higher or lower number to
> put a given flexbox child first?

Lower numbers should come first, because content order gives increasing
z-order, so it should give increasing flexbox-order as well.

Also, having elements appear in increasing numeric order simply makes more
sense, surely.

"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
Received on Monday, 10 May 2010 22:18:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:46 UTC