Re: [css-flexbox] CR Disposition of Comments

On 03/17/2014 04:07 PM, fantasai wrote:
> *ISSUE 19*
> 
> There is a *major* issue open on the handling of flex item
> minimum sizes. You can see the dueling changesets at the
> top of the changes list. :) This is Issue 19 in the DoC.

I think the new proposed min-width/min-height behavior probably makes
sense. "computes to itself" is a nice simplification from the previous
min-width behavior, I think. (on top of the fact that it'd be required,
due to behaving a bit differently from min-content now).

> Issue 3 is about handling percentage children of flex *items*.
> There are two sets of changes that are required to handle this:
[...]
>      Note: IE implements this logic.
>      We do not have a WG resolution on this part, and would
>      like feedback from the WG and Flexbox implementors.

If I'm understanding correctly, I believe Firefox/Gecko already has the
behavior suggested in (a) and (b) here, too.

So, fine by me :)

> *OTHER*
> 
> Issue 32 asks if 'float' should compute to 'none' on flex items.
[...]
> We closed it no change, but would like to hear back from other
> members of the WG in case there are reasons to do otherwise.
> (We didn't have strong reasoning one way or the other.)

I support "no change" here.

There's a good bit of complexity involved (conceptually as well as
implementation-wise, at least in Gecko) in having a property's computed
value depend on the computed value of a different property on a
different element.

If there were a strong behavioral reason to do this (as there is for
e.g. the special "display" behavior on flex items), then that'd be one
thing, but I don't (currently) see that here.

> Issue 33 asks if 'order' affects counters.
> In this case, a reason to not make the change is that 'order'
> is supposed to be purely visual (otherwise, source order should
> be changed), and counters are also part of speech display. We
> closed it no change, but are open to feedback.

I'm happy with the status quo here ("order" not affecting counters).

~Daniel

Received on Wednesday, 19 March 2014 01:44:22 UTC