Hmm... So on further reflection, I realized that it's problematic for transitions to depend on whether or not we're a flexbox item. The definition of "flexbox item" depends partly on what the underlying element is -- e.g. <img> & <embed> vs <span> & <i>. Transitions, however, happen in the style system, so they don't have access to what the underlying element is. (at least, they don't in Gecko) For example: Suppose we've got "flex:1 0 auto" on both an <img> and a <span> inside a flexbox, and then we tweak that to "flex: 10px". The spec currently says that the <img> should transition this change, whereas the <span> shouldn't -- however, we have no way to figure that out from inside the style system. (Of course, even if we transitioned the span, it wouldn't have a visible effect since 'flex' is going to be ignored -- still, the intermediate values of 'flex' would be exposed via the computed style of the 'flex' property.) I think the simplest way to resolve this is just to change "flexbox item" to "child of a flexbox" here: > The ‘flex’ property is transitionable if the element is a flexbox item Thoughts? Does this make sense? ~DanielReceived on Friday, 6 April 2012 23:54:06 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:14 UTC