W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2014

Re: [css-flexbox] element vs box

From: Peter Moulder <pjrm@mail.internode.on.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:13:25 +1100
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <20140212041325.GA25044@mail.internode.on.net>
  # If a box’s specified 'display' is 'inline-flex'
  # and the box is floated or absolutely positioned,
  # the computed value of 'display' is 'flex'.
  # The table in CSS 2.1 Chapter 9.7 is thus amended [to say so].

Could this bit be done in terms of elements?  At present, boxes are generated
based on the computed value of 'display', so it's a bit strange to define the
computed value of 'display' of a box that's already been generated.

Further, "specified value" and "computed value" are terms usually associated
with elements & pseudo-elements rather than boxes.  If we do retain this
formulation, then I suggest being explicit about what the computed value of the
element or pseudo-element corresponding to this box is, as that affects what
display:inherit does.

If it isn't done in terms of elements (and in particular, if this clause
continues to leave the computed value of 'display' for elements as the same as
the specified value), then I think the beginning of section 3 will need
changing to say that the value of 'inline-flex' for an element generates either
a block-level or inline-level flex container box depending on the values of
'float' and 'position' for that element.

What is the purpose of this clause, anyway?  I.e. what parts of CSS depend on
the distinction between 'inline-flex' and 'flex' for the computed value of
'display' for a floated or abspos flex container box?

> -For example, given two contiguous child elements with ''display:table-cell'',
> +For example, given two contiguous child boxes with ''display:table-cell'',
>  an anonymous table wrapper box around them becomes the <i>flex item</i>.

This change makes the word "child" become strange (i.e. they won't actually be
children of the flex container).  Because part of the purpose of the text
around here is clarifying the transformation from elements to boxes, I think
it's better to start off with "two contiguous child elements", and then change
the second half to say "around their boxes".

I haven't yet read the rest (I need to go now), but I think I'll send what I
have now (hoping that the rest of what I read doesn't invalidate what I've just

Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2014 04:13:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:40 UTC