W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2011

RE: [css3-flexbox] issue 10: absolute-positioned flexbox items

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>
Message-ID: <D51C9E849DDD0D4EA38C2E5398569284120A6B45@TK5EX14MBXC214.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
± -----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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:42 GMT