W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2012

Re: [css3-flexbox] Abspos flex-item positions

From: Morten Stenshorne <mstensho@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:17:54 +0200
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
Message-ID: <87d33bas3h.fsf@aeneas.oslo.osa>
"Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> writes:

> Per our action item last week, we've defined the static position of
> abspos flex items consistently with how they're handled in block and
> inline flow:
>   http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-flexbox/#abspos-items
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Jul/0605.html (minutes)
> The WG just tasked us with defining it according to the resolutions,
> so please give feedback. In particular, we'd appreciate implementors
> (Alex, Daniel, Morten) reviewing the proposed text.
> The solution we came up with is more-or-less Proposal D in the wiki
> <http://wiki.csswg.org/topics/flex-abspos-placeholders>, with the edge
> cases fully specified.
> We ended up not using the concept of a "placeholder" at all here -
> instead, the abspos item just participates in flex layout through the
> 'order' step, and then is ignored for the rest of flex layout.  This
> implies that 'order' applies to the abspos.  We can explicitly
> disallow this, but based on Brad Kemper's comments
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Jul/0628.html>, we
> think the WG should revisit this decision.  (My objection to having
> 'order' apply during the call was about having it apply *to the
> placeholder*.  I'm in favor of it applying to the abspos itself.)
> In summary, all we're asking to do on the call is:
> 1. See if anyone objects to the current text.

Looks good. One issue:

    if ‘justify-content’ is ‘end’, it is the inner main-end edge of the
    flex container.

It should say 'flex-end', not 'end'.

> 2. Reverse the resolution about 'order' from last week.

As an implementor I mostly dislike that 'order' affect abspos boxes, but
if authors really love it, who am I to object? :) Besides, letting
'order' apply simply makes sense now, since we have "absolutely
positioned flex items", not "absolutely positioned boxes wrapped inside
an anonymous flex item" (although I may choose to do the latter in
Opera's implementation anyway - not that anyone should notice, of

Just a note: The positioning effect of 'order' only has an effect on
auto-positioned ("statically positioned") absolutely positioned flex
items. The painting order modification caused by 'order' applies to all,

---- Morten Stenshorne, developer, Opera Software ASA ----
---- Office: +47 23692400 ------ Mobile: +47 93440112 ----
------------------ http://www.opera.com/ -----------------
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2012 09:19:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:19 UTC