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

RE: [css3-flexbox] Computed value and flex-align/flex-item-align.

From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 04:15:36 +0000
To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D51C9E849DDD0D4EA38C2E539856928412E1E666@TK5EX14MBXC218.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Just to make it clear, I would certainly prefer to not add code just for getComputedStyle, unless it is really important. 

I can't see any problems with getting 'auto' for alignment, so if we insist on treating that as 'inherit' (which is trivial but slightly more expensive), I'd like to be sure that is not because of choice of words in the spec, that we really have to...

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Alex Mogilevsky [mailto:alexmog@microsoft.com]
>Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 6:53 PM
>To: Tab Atkins Jr.
>Cc: Daniel Holbert; www-style@w3.org
>Subject: RE: [css3-flexbox] Computed value and flex-align/flex-item-align.
>± From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] ± Sent: Thursday,
>January 26, 2012 5:27 PM ± ± Computed values are evaluated as far as
>possible based solely on the value ± of other properties in the document,
>without relying on layout ± information.  'flex-item-align:auto' can be
>resolved based solely on the ± value of 'flex-align' on the parent, so it
>should be resolved at computed- ± value time.
>It sounds like I will have to add special code just to make
>getComputedStyle() happy. Layout works fine today without ever changing
>'auto' to something else, but I guess if somehow it is important for OM, I
>can fix it. Do I?
Received on Friday, 27 January 2012 04:16:13 UTC

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