- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 13:19:54 -0700
- To: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Christian Biesinger <cbiesinger@gmail.com>, Rossen Atanassov <Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com>
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com> wrote: > On 07/17/2015 12:56 PM, fantasai wrote: >> Should we change the spec to make internal table display types just >> turn themselves into flex items, instead of triggering anonymous box >> generation? > > As long as it's consistent with other display types that have box-fixup > (e.g. "display: ruby-base"), this seems OK to me. I was just discussing this with fantasai and brought up the case of <flexbox><table-row><table-cell />...</table-row></flexbox>. This'll give not-great results if we compute the table-row into a block, as the cells will no longer fill the row. (They'll instead get joined into an anonymous table and shrinkwrap.) We can fix this by forcing internal table display types to display:table instead of display:block; it'll make Flexbox happy and still avoid having to do box fixup. Ruby doesn't have anything sensical to do, so we can leave it as going to display:block. (Then we can capture this concept in Display; we just need a name for it.) ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 21 July 2015 20:20:40 UTC