- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:33:33 -0800
- To: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com> wrote: > On 01/25/2012 11:15 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> >> I've just now updated the spec, so that 'float' computes as normal, >> and changes the computed value of 'display' to block, but otherwise >> has no effect. Please check that I've done it correctly! I also >> added a line to Example 2 to illustrate this case. > > > Thanks! > > I have one slightly-nitpicky question on the new text. The spec now says: >> A flexbox creates a new flexbox formatting context for its contents. >> This is similar to a block formatting context > [...] >> Additionally, all of the flexbox items establish new block formatting > >> contexts for their contents. > > I don't think those last two lines are strictly true. In particular, > suppose one of the flexbox items is itself a flexbox. Then, per the first > two quoted lines, it would establish a FFC for its contents -- *not* a BFC. > (though an FFC is "similar to a BFC") > > Similarly, a <table> is a flexbox item, but I don't think it establishes a > BFC for its contents, correct? Its <td> elements do establish BFCs, but I > don't think the <table> itself does. > > (Actually, I just noticed "ISSUE 3: Figure out the right terms to use here" > -- maybe the above is what this issue is about?) Basically, yeah. I'm not sure exactly how to talk about this. The point is just floats outside of a flexbox don't intrude inside of them, and floats inside of flexbox items don't extrude outside of them. Suggestions of better wording definitely welcome. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2012 22:34:28 UTC