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

Re: [css-flexbox] minor editorial nits

From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 21:19:59 +0000
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CFA0A3DE.1BD56%stearns@adobe.com>
On 5/19/14, 10:53 PM, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:

>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.

That would work, too.

>
>> 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"?

It’s not so much about specified versus computed values. It’s about the
lack of mention of the align-items property. I think this is the second
time I’ve read through this and asked myself, “Why are we considering the
individual flex item alignments now instead of the container’s
align-items?” Perhaps that’s just me, though.

Thanks,

Alan

Received on Monday, 19 May 2014 21:20:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:51:27 UTC