Re: [css3-flexbox] getting multiline flexbox back into the spec

On 8/06/2011 4:50 PM, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
> From: fantasai Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 10:50 PM To:
>> On 06/08/2011 01:06 PM, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:

>>> Explicit declaration as 'horizontal-ltr' is significantly more reliable
>>> than anything like 'direction:horizontal reverse'
>>
>> While I agree that we should have a way to explicitly say
>> 'horizontal-ltr',
>> I'm not so certain that logical backwardness isn't needed. I can't think
>> of a use case for backwards ordering in the inline dimension, but I can
>> see backwards ordering being useful in the block direction when you have
>> columns.
>
> I assume that columns are defined as:
>
> block-flow: vertical-wrap;
>
> then if you want to define full set of progressions we will probably
> need to use parametric form of LM defintiion:
>
> block-flow: vertical-wrap[(ttb | btt [, ltr | rtl ])];
>
> that will define all possible configurations.

Why 'ltr' and 'rtl"?


> I don't think that logical directions make sense in CSS at all.


You think the reverse is true with visual direction? Do they make sense?


> They just complicate CSS usage a lot. I said couple of times here that CSS
> should just have pseudo-classes :ltr, :rtl, :ttb that are set from
> @dir. In this case we can define:
>
> .toolbar:rtl
> {
> block-flow: horizontal(rtl); // or just block-flow: horizontal
> horizontal-align: right;
> }
>
> Explicit definitions are always better (manageable) than
> bunch of nested after/before, start/end, reverse/non-reverse, etc.


You have 'block-flow: horizontal(rtl)' Blocks do not flow in how you 
think. They progress in an order (perpendicular to the flow). Think of 
it like a stream with boats that move sideways. For a horizontal base 
writing system, consider line-left as bank-left and line-right as 
bank-right.


   |  (   (   (   (  |
   |[     BOAT      ]|
   |  )   )   )   )  |
   |[     BOAT      ]|
   |  (   (   (   (  |
   |[     BOAT      ]|
   |  )   )   )   )  |


>>> By the way, you used keyword 'reverse'. It is 'reverse' to what
>>> actually?
>>> I mean what exactly defines normal, non-reversed order then, the
>>> 'direction'?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> If "yes" then it means direction of block-flow is governed by the
> 'direction'.


No it isn't. It can be reversed.

   |  (   (   (   (  |
   |[     TAOB      ]|
   |  )   )   )   )  |
   |[     TAOB      ]|
   |  (   (   (   (  |
   |[     TAOB      ]|
   |  )   )   )   )  |


> At least in default form. And 'direction' is not just a
> text direction but "UI-directionality", right?


The default is the initial embedding level (base direction) of most UI.

<root></root>  =  <root dir=ltr"></root>


-- 
Alan Gresley
http://css-3d.org/
http://css-class.com/

Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2011 11:06:00 UTC