W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2016

Re: [css-flexbox] 'order' and absolutely-positioned children

From: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 11:02:38 -0700
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <ed9ef582-9942-5906-835f-8471186fef5b@mozilla.com>
I don't have strong feelings on this.

For Firefox/Gecko, I suspect the "order" spec language was very "flex
item"-specific back when flexbox was on my front-burner, so I assumed at
that point that it did not apply to abspos items. (as did other
implementors, it seems) And I don't think I noticed when it changed to
make the order language more "child"-focused (including abspos stuff).

Hypothetically if we *do* keep the requirement that abspos items must
respect "order", then there's one typo that needs fixing.  The spec
currently says:
  # The order property controls the order in which
  # children of a flex container appear within the
  # flex container, by assigning them to ordinal
  # groups. It takes a single <integer> value, which
  # specifies which ordinal group the flex item belongs to.
https://drafts.csswg.org/css-flexbox-1/#order-property

Right now this paragraph is inconsistent -- it starts out talking about
"children" (including abspos things), but it ends with "the flex item"
(excluding abspos things).  Needs to be clarified in one direction or
the other.

Thanks,
~Daniel

On 04/11/2016 03:41 PM, fantasai wrote:
> Tab and I were just discussing some redundant wording with Mats
> about reordering grid container children and noticed that none
> of the implementations implement the 'order'-based reordering
> of absolutely-positioned flex children.
>   http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?saved=4043
> 
> (Previously 'order' had an effect on the static position of
> abspos children of a flex container, but since we removed that,
> painting order is the only remaining effect that 'order' has
> on absposes.)
> 
> We're proposing therefore to remove this requirement, to align
> with the implementations and to make absolute positioning more
> consistent across layout modes (given other layout modes don't
> handle 'order').
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> ~fantasai and TJ
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2016 18:03:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:02 UTC