W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2012

Re: [css3-flexbox] We need a BFC for "intended-to-be-replaced" flex items like <object>, <img>

From: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 15:49:55 -0700
Message-ID: <4FBAC693.6080504@mozilla.com>
To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 05/21/2012 02:48 PM, Daniel Holbert wrote:
> I think we need to somehow treat the <object> as if it were really
> "display:block" (or perhaps "display:inline-block", depending on what we
> want the baseline to be).
> 
> Does this make sense?  Moreover, would we want to make its display value
> *actually compute* to 'block', too?

fantasai set me straight -- the spec already says "yes" and "yes" --
these flex items will indeed become display:block.

That's because the very end of the flex-item spec section says:
  # The computed value for ‘display’ for elements that are
  # flex items must be determined by applying the table in
  # CSS 2.1 Chapter 9.7.

...which links to http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/visuren.html#dis-pos-flo
which says inline & inline-block become blocks, inline-table becomes
table, etc.

(I didn't initially notice this text, since it was added at the very end
of that section, after the giant [example] block.  I wonder if it should
be higher up, with the rest of the normative text about flex items, so
that others don't make the same mistake I did?  It seems kind of lonely
down there. :)  Not a big issue though.)

~Daniel
Received on Monday, 21 May 2012 22:50:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:54 GMT