On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote: > On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com> > wrote: > > I asked this exact question back in January: > > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Jan/1232.html > > > > and it appeared that we settled on flex-order _not_ affecting painting > order: > > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Jan/1241.html > > > > and as a result, we have this text in the spec right now: > > > > # ‘flex-order’ has no effect on stacking/layering; elements must > > # still be drawn over/under each other based on document order, > > # ‘z-index’, and other relevant means. > > > > I prefer this behavior (no effect on painting order), but I'm OK with it > > either way. (though we should be sure that flexbox & grid end up being > > consistent on this) > > Argh, I remember that conversation now. I'd forgotten about that spec > text. >_< > > Welp, we have inconsistent impls now. Let me check with Ojan and Tony > to see if they object to changing the impl. If they don't, then there > was never an issue to resolve. > It shouldn't be too hard to change the implementation, but it seems like painting in flex-order would be less confusing. That is, if I change order, I would still expect the first flex item (visually) to be painted first.Received on Thursday, 17 May 2012 17:49:51 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:16 UTC