- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 09:23:54 -0500
- To: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>, www-style@w3.org
On 02/21/2015 04:05 AM, François REMY wrote: > ± Fantasai wrote: > ± I don't understand. What do you think needs clarification? > > According to your reading of the spec [1] IE was the only browser matching the spec because he capped the absolute flexbox at 100vw for the purposes of flexing. > > However, we learnt here that Spartan will revert to the Chrome's behavior [2], which is to refuse to cap an absolutely positioned flexbox at 100vw. To be honest this is the behavior that was intuitive to me. > > This means we now have 3-render-engines interoperability on a behavior which you claimed isn't what the spec says. That's why I think we should clarify explicitly the behavior of absolutely positioned flexboxes in the spec (possibly as an informal note), and not rely on the indirect interaction of multiple other specs; that can be confusing. That's ridiculous. Nowhere does flexbox say that "only if you're absolutely positioned, use infinity instead of the containing block width as the available width for the flex container". You're saying we need the opposite statement? "By the way, flex containers don't suddenly ignore their containing block size just because they happen to be absolutely positioned."? ~fantasai
Received on Saturday, 21 February 2015 14:24:23 UTC