New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[css-flexbox-1] Fragmentation rules around break propagation are confusingly-written #2614

Closed
fantasai opened this Issue Apr 26, 2018 · 3 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@fantasai
Contributor

fantasai commented Apr 26, 2018

fantasai added a commit that referenced this issue May 2, 2018

[css-break-1][css-flexbox-1] Clarify that break propagation doesn't o…
…ccur for out-of-flows, that it doesn't affect computed values, and that it uses order-modified document order. #2614

@fantasai fantasai added the css-break-3 label May 2, 2018

@fantasai

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

fantasai commented 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:

  • 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

Agenda+ since this has normative implications

@fantasai fantasai added the Agenda+ label May 2, 2018

fergald added a commit to fergald/csswg-drafts that referenced this issue May 7, 2018

[css-break-1][css-flexbox-1] Clarify that break propagation doesn't o…
…ccur for out-of-flows, that it doesn't affect computed values, and that it uses order-modified document order. w3c#2614
@gregwhitworth

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

gregwhitworth commented 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

This comment has been minimized.

Member

css-meeting-bot commented 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-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
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment