- 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>
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