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

Re: [css3-flexbox] Changing abspos placeholders to atomic inlines

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 17:43:24 -0700
Message-ID: <4FBAE12C.8080903@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 05/21/2012 02:38 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 2:36 AM, Anton Prowse<prowse@moonhenge.net>  wrote:
>> On 18/05/2012 02:44, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>> Issue link: http://wiki.csswg.org/topics/css3-flexbox-abspos-flex-items
>>> Previously, the "placeholder" left behind by abspos items was defined
>>> to be a "0x0 anonymous inline".  Anton raised the issue that setting
>>> an inline to 0 height doesn't really do anything, and we may instead
>>> want to set its line-height to 0.  Instead, fantasai and I decided to
>>> just change them to atomic inlines.  This makes the 0 height actually
>>> matter.
>>> This has additional implications, though.  As an atomic inline, the
>>> placeholder now becomes a flex item, rather than being wrapped in a
>>> flex item.  This actually seems like slightly better behavior, as it
>>> means that it responds directly to flex-align.
>> I think that works, but I'm not seeing the connection to 'flex-align'; would
>> you mind elaborating?
> The effect actually isn't as large as I previously thought.  The
> effects of 'flex-align' on an anonymous block around the placeholder
> end up being about the same as applying them the placeholder itself.
> Possibly identical, but I'm not certain off the top of my head.  It
> may be simply that the only observable effect is to make two abspos
> elements next to each other still take up two "spots" for the purpose
> of flex-pack:justify and such.

Yeah, the only observable effect would for those 'flex-pack' values.

This change makes the behavior of placeholders more explainable imo.
Each abspos placeholder individually acts as a zero-width flex item,
so two of them will no longer glom together as one, nor will they
be scooped up into a run of inlines.

Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 00:44:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:16 UTC