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
>>> did that requi
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 i
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 ge
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? A
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 ca
