Re: [css-flexbox] LCWD: Notifier call for review

On 06/04/2015 11:21 PM, timeless wrote:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-css-flexbox-1-20150514/
>
>> /* dynamically collapse submenus when not targetted [sic] */
>
> targeted

Not fixing coz I object to that spelling. :)

>> In a multi-line flex container (even one with only a single line),
>> the cross size of each line is the minimum size necessary to contain the flex items on the line
>> (after aligment [sic] due to align-self),
>
> alignment

Fixed.

>>     When a multi-line colum [sic] flex container breaks,
>
> column

Fixed.

>>      Aside from the rearrangement of items imposed by the previous point,
>> UAs should attempt to minimize distortation [sic] of the flex container with respect to unfragmented flow.
>
> distortion ?

Fixed.

>> Here’s an example of a catalog where each item has
>> a title, an [sic] photo, a description, and a purchase button.

Fixed.

>> #deals {
>>   display: flex;        /* Flex layout so items have equal height  */
>>    flex-flow: row wrap;  /* Allow items to wrap into multiple lines */
>> }
>
> this sample in Example 1, renders the `#deals` to the right of the `{`
> in Firefox 38.0.5, which is really painful.

I'm confused and have no idea what you're talking about. :(
Looking at https://drafts.csswg.org/css-flexbox/#overview
in Firefox 40.

>> None of the properties defined in this module apply to the
>> ::first-line or ::first-letter pseudo-elements.
>
> why isn't ::first-letter a link?

Fixed.

>> However, an anonymous flex item that contains only white space (i.e.
> characters that can be affected by the white-space property) is not
> rendered, as if it were display:none.
>
> "is not rendered,  as if it were display:none" -- while this probably
> isn't technically ambiguous, it's a pain in my neck to reason through,
> I'd request you rewrite it to avoid having `not` precede `as if`; does
> this mean the same as what you intended:
>
> However, an anonymous flex item that contains only white space is
> treated as if it were display:none, i.e. it is not rendered.

I switched to

  # is not rendered (just as if it were ''display:none'').

which doesn't really reorder the text like you suggested, but hopefully
should be clearer than before.

> Example 2 doesn't include a demo, while I'm sure i could copy this out
> and make one, is there a reason not to include the demo?

Laziness. Added a picture.

>> However, it does participate in the reordering step (see order), which has an effect in their painting order.
>
> in -> on

Fixed.

> Example 3 doesn't seem to be an example. There's neither code nor a
> demo visible.

It's still an example.

> http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-css-flexbox-1-20150514/#static_position-rectangle
>
> This green thing is rendered like a `Note` but doesn't say it's a
> Note, and it's written to sound like a definition, which is quite
> confusing. What is it?

It's a non-normative explanatory note... that exists because we're
missing the spec that needs to fully define this concept. In an ideal
world (perhaps sometime in the future) it won't need to exist in this
spec at all and can be replaced with a link.

> Example 4 might benefit from a note explaining that the general figure
> intentionally grows when :hover is applied to /something/ within the
> box... (but that it retains that general size when you shift the
> :hover within it...)

Added.

>> This determines the direction that flex items are laid out in.
>
> Personally I'd favor:
>
> This determines the direction in which flex items are laid out.

Fixed.

> Example 5, the first example has 4 overrunning its box (FF 38.0.5), is
> that intended? -- If it is, a note explaining why would be helpful.

As dholbert pointed out, it's to show off the "no wrap" effect.
(It is explained that this is a non-wrapping flexbox.)
   https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Jun/0076.html

Theoretically we could alternatively show an example where the
items shrank to fit instead of overflowing, since that is also
an important characteristic of non-wrapping flex containers.
But I'm not sure how to draw that without getting overcomplicated.

Thanks for the review, btw.

~fantasai

Received on Monday, 31 August 2015 22:10:33 UTC