table-row; flex items from fantasai on 2013-07-19 (www-style@w3.org from July 2013) (original) (raw)

On 05/22/2013 02:04 PM, Christian Biesinger wrote:

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Christian Biesinger <cbiesinger@google.com> wrote:

Hm... in that case I'd like to ask, why is this behavior desirable? It seems like lots of complexity for little gain compared to just promoting the display types to block.

The gain is that you get to rely on the same box-construction rules that you get inside of block layout. It's not good if two naked table-cells wrap themselves in a table in block layout, but break in flexbox layout.

OK then... I filed a bug to fix the behavior in Chrome, though I'm unconvinced how useful this behavior is.

(https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=243056)

I'm similarly unconvinced. It certainly seems simpler just to do the computed value fixup, and would probably be useful in cases where you want flexbox, but use table layout as a backup.

.flexbox { display: table; display: flex; } .flexbox * { display: table-cell; /* horizontal / display: table-row; / vertical */ }

I've pushed a clarification here, but maybe we should instead change that part of the spec in favor of computed value fixup.

bz, dholbert, Rossen, any thoughts?

~fantasai

Received on Friday, 19 July 2013 01:04:14 UTC