On 05/24/2010 04:53 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > One of my coworkers was looking at my new flexbox draft, and asked me > why flex-index was limited to flexbox children only. > > I didn't have a good answer for him. Flex units are limited to > flexbox children, because they don't work properly in normal flow (so > far - I'm interested in seeing if we can do something reasonable with > them later). But does content-reordering cause any similar problems? > > It would certainly be *confusing* given a lot of current spec text > that plays loose with the distinction between elements and boxes. But > I suspect that it's doable. It may have to wait for a proper spec > detailing the creation and structure of the box-tree from the > element-tree, though, so we can unambiguously talk about element-tree > order and display-tree order. > > Does this sound like something vaguely reasonable? Should I worry > about renaming flex-index to box-index to allow for this ability in > the future? Should I leave it alone, and just define flex-index as a > synonym for box-index if we end up doing this later? To me, 'flex-index' sounds like property that controls flex, not one that controls box order. Just sayin'. ~fantasaiReceived on Tuesday, 25 May 2010 00:21:28 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:13:46 UTC