You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
[css-flexbox-1] Fragmentation rules around break propagation are confusingly-written #2614
OK, I made some clarifications to Fragmentation and to Flexbox, specifically, pulled out break propagation into its own section into css-break-3 and clarified that:
out-of-flows don't propagate their break values up to their parents
layout modes like Flexbox and Grid have more specific propagation rules which override the one in css-break-3
Flexbox uses order-modified document order in determining first/last child
@fantasai With regards to flex change specifically - this is how I understood the previous spec text to work so no argument from me. I think the clarity provide by this change will make it much more approachable by anyone; so, it's a good improvement. Finally, the addition of the note regarding the computed value clarifies the confusion the test author had. Thanks for doing this.
The Working Group just discussed Fragmentation rules around break propagation are confusingly-written, and agreed to the following:
RESOLVED: Accept changes in https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2614#issuecomment-385836043
The full IRC log of that discussion
<dael> Topic: Fragmentation rules around break propagation are confusingly-written
<dael> github: https://github.com//issues/2614#issuecomment-385836043
<rego> no she sent regrets
<dael> Rossen_: Summary: There were some comments made about fragmentation rules not being clear, esp with child/parent break propagation. Changes added to css break were intended to address this.
<dael> Rossen_: [reads 2st clarification] makes sense because out of flow items proagate to containing block.
<dael> Rossen_: 2nd is flex and grid layout have specific prop rules that override css 3 break. That was in tune to previous since we've extended fragmentation before and assume that overrides, but now that's explicit
<dael> Rossen_: Last is flexbox....i think grid...order is modified and prop is based on layout order, not doc order.
<dael> Rossen_: These are the changes. Issue was on the agenda to either accept or challenge the changes.
<dael> Rossen_: From the 3 changes, as I said, 2 are mostly editorial. 1st is out of flows don't prop their break...that can be seen as normative
<dael> Rossen_: Opinions? Questions? Reasons not to accept?
<dael> Rossen_: I'll take silence as no. Obj to accept changes in https://github.com//issues/2614#issuecomment-385836043 ?
<dbaron> I think it's probably fine, but I think out-of-flows might be a *little* interesting, maybe?
<dael> RESOLVED: Accept changes in https://github.com//issues/2614#issuecomment-385836043
<dael> dbaron: I think it's fine
Activity
[css-break-1][css-flexbox-1] Clarify that break propagation doesn't o…
fantasai commentedon May 2, 2018
OK, I made some clarifications to Fragmentation and to Flexbox, specifically, pulled out break propagation into its own section into css-break-3 and clarified that:
Agenda+ since this has normative implications
[css-break-1][css-flexbox-1] Clarify that break propagation doesn't o…
gregwhitworth commentedon May 16, 2018
@fantasai With regards to flex change specifically - this is how I understood the previous spec text to work so no argument from me. I think the clarity provide by this change will make it much more approachable by anyone; so, it's a good improvement. Finally, the addition of the note regarding the computed value clarifies the confusion the test author had. Thanks for doing this.
css-meeting-bot commentedon May 16, 2018
The Working Group just discussed
Fragmentation rules around break propagation are confusingly-written, and agreed to the following:RESOLVED: Accept changes in https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2614#issuecomment-385836043The full IRC log of that discussion
<dael> Topic: Fragmentation rules around break propagation are confusingly-written<dael> github: https://github.com//issues/2614#issuecomment-385836043
<rego> no she sent regrets
<dael> Rossen_: Summary: There were some comments made about fragmentation rules not being clear, esp with child/parent break propagation. Changes added to css break were intended to address this.
<dael> Rossen_: [reads 2st clarification] makes sense because out of flow items proagate to containing block.
<dael> Rossen_: 2nd is flex and grid layout have specific prop rules that override css 3 break. That was in tune to previous since we've extended fragmentation before and assume that overrides, but now that's explicit
<dael> Rossen_: Last is flexbox....i think grid...order is modified and prop is based on layout order, not doc order.
<dael> Rossen_: These are the changes. Issue was on the agenda to either accept or challenge the changes.
<dael> Rossen_: From the 3 changes, as I said, 2 are mostly editorial. 1st is out of flows don't prop their break...that can be seen as normative
<dael> Rossen_: Opinions? Questions? Reasons not to accept?
<dael> Rossen_: I'll take silence as no. Obj to accept changes in https://github.com//issues/2614#issuecomment-385836043 ?
<dbaron> I think it's probably fine, but I think out-of-flows might be a *little* interesting, maybe?
<dael> RESOLVED: Accept changes in https://github.com//issues/2614#issuecomment-385836043
<dael> dbaron: I think it's fine