- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 21:04:09 -0700
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, Adam Del Vecchio <adam.delvecchio@go-techo.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 6:37 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > On Monday 2010-05-17 15:17 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com> wrote: >> >> From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] >> >> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 2:52 PM >> >> >> >> If this is a problem, you just make the flexbox a BFC, so it won't overlap the float. >> > >> > Are you suggesting Flexbox currently is not BFC? >> >> The current Flexbox draft says nothing about it, so I was going with >> the assumption that it wasn't. I can change that assumption if it >> doesn't make sense for it to not be a BFC. > > I think flexboxes should establish new block formatting contexts (as > table cells do). It doesn't make sense for floats inside them to > try to move outside of them. So both the flexbox and its children are BFCs, then, right? ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2010 06:44:57 UTC