- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 08:51:17 -0700
- To: "Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu" <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
- Cc: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, John Hax <johnhax@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 7:44 AM, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu> wrote: > (12/07/12 0:33), Alex Mogilevsky wrote: >> It is possible to define it that way, it was that way at some point. >> However there are some non-trivial details to be defined, the >> position in the middle of the space seems as random as any other, it >> is more complicated to implement, all for the benefit of something >> that nobody could come up with a sensible use case for. > > Do we have use cases for the 'auto' location of a absolutely positioned > flex item then? And what are they? I mean, why can't we just say there > are no placeholders and the 'auto' location is that of the flex container? Saying there are no placeholders is inconsistent with table layout, which is currently the only other place where they're observable. I doubt there are use-cases for making flex items abspos at all, frankly. So, with a relative lack of user or author use-case, might as well optimize for UA ease and theoretical consistency. If someone *does* use the auto position of a flex item, though, this solution is also less likely to have them overlap, which is nice. That's why we chose what we did. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2012 15:52:11 UTC