Re: [whatwg] [csswg][css-display] Updated WD of CSS Display L3

2017-02-02 Thread Tab Atkins Jr.
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 2/2/17 2:28 PM, fantasai wrote: >> >> On 02/02/2017 01:18 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: >>> >>> OK, so if I have a flex container with two kids, a run-in and a block, >>> do I get one flex item or two flex items and why? And

Re: [whatwg] [csswg][css-display] Updated WD of CSS Display L3

2017-02-02 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 2/2/17 2:28 PM, fantasai wrote: On 02/02/2017 01:18 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: OK, so if I have a flex container with two kids, a run-in and a block, do I get one flex item or two flex items and why? And did that require any thought about interactions? You get two flex items, because being

Re: [whatwg] [csswg][css-display] Updated WD of CSS Display L3

2017-02-02 Thread fantasai
On 02/02/2017 01:18 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: On 2/1/17 6:07 PM, fantasai wrote: Wrt this particular issue, run-ins only run into other blocks; they do not exist in or affect layout modes other than block-and-inline. OK, so if I have a flex container with two kids, a run-in and a block, do I

Re: [whatwg] [csswg][css-display] Updated WD of CSS Display L3

2017-02-02 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 2/1/17 6:07 PM, fantasai wrote: Wrt this particular issue, run-ins only run into other blocks; they do not exist in or affect layout modes other than block-and-inline. OK, so if I have a flex container with two kids, a run-in and a block, do I get one flex item or two flex items and why?

Re: [whatwg] [csswg][css-display] Updated WD of CSS Display L3

2017-02-02 Thread fantasai
On 01/26/2017 12:10 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: On 1/25/17 10:48 PM, Florian Rivoal wrote: Is it a general argument that adding more things to the platform always makes it harder down the road to add more things due to having to figure out more interactions It's not a general argument in this

Re: [whatwg] [csswg][css-display] Updated WD of CSS Display L3

2017-01-25 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 1/25/17 10:48 PM, Florian Rivoal wrote: Is it a general argument that adding more things to the platform always makes it harder down the road to add more things due to having to figure out more interactions It's not a general argument in this case. It's a specific argument. For example,

Re: [whatwg] [csswg][css-display] Updated WD of CSS Display L3

2017-01-25 Thread Florian Rivoal
> On Jan 26, 2017, at 12:23, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > It will complicate attempts to add other, much higher value, features to > CSS, again both in terms of specification and implementation. Could you elaborate on that? Is it a general argument that adding more things to

Re: [whatwg] [csswg][css-display] Updated WD of CSS Display L3

2017-01-25 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 1/25/17 8:14 PM, fantasai wrote: * a 'run-in' layout model slightly less insane than the one proposed in CSS2.0 I like the truth in advertising there. ;) I'd just like to reiterate my (longstanding, so unlikely to sway anyone) opinion that run-in, even in this "less insane"

[whatwg] [csswg][css-display] Updated WD of CSS Display L3

2017-01-25 Thread fantasai
The CSS WG has published an updated Working Draft of the CSS Display Module Level 3: https://www.w3.org/TR/css-display-3/ This module describes how the CSS formatting box tree is generated from the document element tree and defines the display property that controls it. Additions since

[whatwg] [CSSWG][css-display] Updated WD of CSS Display L3

2014-09-27 Thread fantasai
About a fortnight ago, the CSS WG published an updated Working Draft of the CSS Display Module L3: http://www.w3.org/TR/css-display-3/ CSS Display describes how the CSS formatting box tree is generated from the document element tree and defines properties that control the types of boxes