- From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kanghaol@oupeng.com>
- Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 17:45:14 +0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
(12/09/29 6:54), Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > We've gone back and forth over the history of the spec over whether to > call abspos children of a flex container "flex items" or not (settling > on calling them flex items). Did we have any discussions about this on the list? Just curious. > It looks like this confused us when we were writing the "Flex > Baselines" section, because it doesn't distinguish between in-flow > and out-of-flow flex items. Obviously, the intent is to use the > first *in-flow* flex item whenever it mentions a flex item, so we > need to go amend that. > > I should make sure that we're not accidentally including out-of-flow > flex items anywhere else where it's inappropriate, either. which means that you need to add *in-flow* to every "flex item" in the flexible layout algorithm? As well as the "Applies To:" lines for 'flex' and 'align-self'? Wouldn't it be easier to amend the definition of a flex item? Cheers, Kenny -- Web Specialist, Oupeng Browser, Beijing Try Oupeng: http://www.oupeng.com/
Received on Saturday, 29 September 2012 09:45:47 UTC