- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 17:43:24 -0700
- 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. ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 00:44:15 UTC