W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2013

Re: [css3-flexbox] spec contradicts itself about display: table-row; flex items

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 18:03:46 -0700
Message-ID: <51E89072.1050701@inkedblade.net>
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>, Rossen Atanassov <Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
On 05/22/2013 02:04 PM, Christian Biesinger wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Christian Biesinger
>> <cbiesinger@google.com> wrote:
>>> Hm... in that case I'd like to ask, why is this behavior desirable? It
>>> seems like lots of complexity for little gain compared to just
>>> promoting the display types to block.
>> The gain is that you get to rely on the same box-construction rules
>> that you get inside of block layout.  It's not good if two naked
>> table-cells wrap themselves in a table in block layout, but break in
>> flexbox layout.
> OK then... I filed a bug to fix the behavior in Chrome, though I'm
> unconvinced how useful this behavior is.
> (https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=243056)

I'm similarly unconvinced. It certainly seems simpler just to
do the computed value fixup, and would probably be useful in
cases where you want flexbox, but use table layout as a backup.

.flexbox { display: table; display: flex; }
.flexbox * { display: table-cell; /* horizontal */
              display: table-row;  /* vertical */ }

I've pushed a clarification here, but maybe we should instead
change that part of the spec in favor of computed value fixup.

bz, dholbert, Rossen, any thoughts?

Received on Friday, 19 July 2013 01:04:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:30 UTC