- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 09:44:32 -0700
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 8:26 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > Right now for multi-line row flexboxes the spec says > > # Lay out as many flexbox lines as possible (but at least one) ... > # Forced breaks within flexbox items are ignored. > > It should say > > | Lay out as many flexbox lines (or fragments thereof) as possible (but at > least one) > > There's no reason a flexbox line in multi-line flexboxes should be > unfragmentable. > > We could give it avoidance behavior (only implicitly fragment if at top of > page). > Or just let an explicit break-inside: avoid; on an individual item provide > that effect. > But it should be fragmentable at the very least when placed at the top of > the page, > and there's imo no reason forced breaks within items should be ignored. I tried, but it ended up being weird, as a fragment might move to a narrow page and be forced to overflow, while the subsequent whole lines don't. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2012 16:45:22 UTC