- From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 21:53:47 +0000
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
± -----Original Message----- ± From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] ± Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 2:34 PM ± ± Whatever we do, we should be consistent with how display:table handles ± things. I don't think this is an important enough issue to justify a ± confusing difference. ± ± (I don't care what that means; adjusting display:table is as valid as ± adjusting display:flexbox, if it can be done without compat problems.) I don't think display:table (or anything in CSS2.1) will help make a decision here. I can't think of any example in CSS2.1 where it would be possible to tell if a positioned element leaves a zero-size placeholder (as long as it is considered "empty" for margin collapsing). I have mixed feelings about absolute elements creating empty anonymous flex items. Until that, you could always delete any absolute element and be sure that it will not change any non-positioned layout. Breaking that without any important gain doesn't sound right...
Received on Monday, 18 July 2011 21:54:22 UTC