- From: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 10:46:56 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
On 05/12/2012 02:49 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > Luckily, the issue here with not knowing whether a child is an item or not > has been resolved - HTML's replaced elements are now *always* flexbox items > regardless. This means that whether something is a flexbox item or not is > based purely off of computed-time information, so I can go back to having > these properties refer to flexbox items. [preface: I very much agree with bz's sentiment on keeping this simple. (and it sounds like you do too, from your response to him)] However: even if we settled on "flex-item-align:auto" having flexbox-item-specific behavior (as you seemed to be initially advocating above), we'd still have a problem. The computed value of "flex-item-align:auto" would still be undefined on non-flexbox-items. Should "auto" always compute to "stretch" outside of a flexbox? Should it compute to "auto" (which so far hasn't been a valid computed value for this property)? The spec doesn't say right now. In any case -- there's no useful reason for special-casing here, since flex-item-align is ignored outside of a flexbox, so I think we should just be consistent & always make 'auto' take the parent's flex-align value. (with just the one special case for the root element w/ no parent) Thanks, ~Daniel
Received on Monday, 14 May 2012 17:47:26 UTC