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
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
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
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?
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
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,
> 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
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"
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
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
10 matches
Mail list logo