- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 17:35:27 -0700
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Everybody's least-favorite topic! (Mine anyway.) The section on static positions of flex items is marked at-risk. It's an open issue in Grid Layout. I'd like to start a discussion on this topic, with consideration for - what makes sense for Grid Layout - what's implemented so far for Flexbox and Grid - aligning Flexbox and Grid, what about these two specs should change/stay the same to make their behavior consistent? Flexbox: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-flexbox/#abspos-items # The static position is intended to more-or-less match the # position of an anonymous 0×0 in-flow ‘flex-start’-aligned # flex item that participates in flex layout, the primary # difference being that [extra packing space is not introduced]. Grid: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-grid-layout/#abspos-items http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-grid/#abspos-items # An absolutely-positioned child element of a grid container # does not participate directly in grid layout. Its static # position is ??? # a) The before/start corner of the grid container? (In this case, # should we adjust Flexbox to match?) # b) The before/start edge of the cell it would be placed in, # if it were a 1x1 auto-placed grid item? (Don't let it # generate new rows/columns, though, which complicates # things.) (This is closer to Flexbox's current behavior.) # c) The static position is affected by the alignment properties, # as if it was a 0x0 thing floating around in the containing # block. (Defaults to the start/start corner, since ‘stretch’ # can't do anything to it.) # d) Other? Thoughts? Suggestions? Data? Proposals? Use cases? ~fantasai
Received on Friday, 19 July 2013 00:35:55 UTC