Re: [css-flexbox] minor editorial nits

On 05/07/2014 05:55 PM, Alan Stearns wrote:
> I started a re-read of flexbox today, and here’s what I’ve found up
> through section 9.6.
>
> Given the existence of collapsed flex items and non-displayed flex items
> made up of whitespace, perhaps section 6.0 should say that flex lines must
> contain at least one *displayed* flex item.

I'm a little hesitant to make such a change, because I think there are
lots of places where we assume flex items means displayed flex items,
and only the chapters on collapsed and non-displayed flex items talk
about those at all. It would be noise in the use of the term "flex item".

I'd rather we made the sections on whitespace and collapsing be clear
about how the flex item is not considered for layout.

> The Flexibility intro in section 7.0 could be read to imply that both
> width and height can flex. The following sections clear this up, but it
> might be an improvement to say, “…fill the available space in the main
> dimension.”

Done.

> I'm assuming the semicolon in step 13 closes the 'if' statement, and the
> end 'auto' margin handling happens whether or not the start margin was
> auto. Since this is prose and not code, you might want to make a separate
> sentence or break the two parts into sub-bullets under “Otherwise”

Made it a separate sentence.

> It would have helped me to note in step 14 that align-self:auto computes
> to the align-items value. It took me a while to figure out why align-items
> was not ever referenced in the layout algorithm.

None of the layout algorithm ever looks at specified values: it
only ever looks at computed/used values. Same thing for flex
basis, do we really need to note that "by the way, sometimes
it ends up being the width/height value, don't forget"?

~fantasai

Received on Monday, 19 May 2014 13:53:33 UTC