- 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