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

Re: [css-flexbox] intrinsic sizing

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 11:31:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBq2qFo2fBYxaT9qMB-UMY7AHfKPV_fyDJVzimvJ3sZJw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christian Biesinger <cbiesinger@google.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Christian Biesinger
<cbiesinger@google.com> wrote:
> 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?

After review, you're probably right.  We should be ignoring breaks in
column flexboxes for now.  We'll have to fix this later, but making
them do nothing is the most likely to allow a compat change once we
add flex-line-breaking controls.

> 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.

That's already handled - look at the "For readability" sentence in the
second paragraph of that section.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 6 May 2015 18:32:38 UTC

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