On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 2:01 AM, Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net> wrote: > On 29/04/2012 04:25, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Anton Prowse<prowse@moonhenge.net> > wrote: >>> I read you as saying: table fixup occurs before flexbox does its thing, >>> but block-in-inline fixup occurs after [flexbox does its thing]. This >>> appears to be consistent with s/flexbox/block layout/. >>> >>> ... which leads to "block-in-inline fixup occurs after block layout does >>> its thing". >> >> It's this part that doesn't make sense. I never mentioned block >> layout. Why are you asking me a question about it in relation to >> flexbox? > > Sure you did. I'm asking you a question about it because you offered it > as justification of a particular choice of behaviour in flexbox layout. > > Perhaps it's easier if you could just express what you wrote below in > different terms? > > On 26/01/2012 00:14, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> For clarity, I have currently specified that table-fixup occurs >> *before* flexbox does its thing, but block-in-inline fixup occurs >> *after*. This appears to be consistent with how these two fixup steps >> occur in _block layout_, based on the limited testing I've done so >> far. > > (My emphasis expressed with '_') Oh! Now I get it. I just meant that, if you're in block layout, you can tell that table-fixup occurs before block-in-inline fixup occurs. block-in-inline fixup is *part of* block layout; it doesn't happen *after*. ~TJReceived on Sunday, 29 April 2012 15:50:00 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:15 UTC