W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2015

Re: [css-flexbox] intrinsic sizing

From: Christian Biesinger <cbiesinger@google.com>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 14:17:01 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPTJ0XGHrh2JSAvz0E7en+Y79RopnmwdArbeVR0jeAfkXpN3fA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Christian Biesinger
> <cbiesinger@google.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 5:19 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
>>> As dholbert pointed out, forced page/column breaks can introduce
>>> forced flex line breaks. Note this only happens for column flex
>>> containers. (Forced breaks on flex items in a row get propagated
>>> to the row.)
>> Wait, hold on, are you saying that for @media screen (and without
>> columns, etc) that break-after: always will be ignored for multi-line
>> row flexboxes?
> Hm, that is a correct reading of the section, but I don't think it's
> what was intended.  At the very least, "all" (and the hypothetical
> "flex-line" value) should cause a flex-line break.
> fantasai?

I see now that I incorrectly implemented the spec as written.
However... this seems like a really confusing inconsistency. Why
should break-after: always force a flex line break on screen for
columns but not for rows?

If you do want to keep this I'm not sure that row vs column is the
right distinction. Shouldn't it be horizontal vs vertical, e.g. a
column flexbox in vertical-lr text.

Received on Wednesday, 6 May 2015 18:17:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:54 UTC