- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 21:50:47 -0800
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Christian Biesinger <cbiesinger@gmail.com>, Rossen Atanassov <Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com>, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
On 07/17/2015 12:56 PM, fantasai wrote: > The spec currently requires that we do box fixup before determining > flex items: > http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-css-flexbox-1-20150514/#flex-items > This was discussed originally in this thread: > [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013May/0508.html > [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Jul/0462.html > [3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Jul/0473.html > > Chrome doesn't follow the spec in this case--it turns table cells into > flex items. Which, as I had pointed out [2], has the nice ability to > create a fallback rendering. The argument for not changing it was that > nobody cares. [3] > > However, at least some people do care: see e.g. slide 39, which despite > the fact that it would result in layouts that only work properly in > Chrome, uses this technique: > http://zomigi.com/downloads/Enhancing-Responsiveness-with-Flexbox_CSS-Day_150612.pdf > > Should we change the spec to make internal table display types just > turn themselves into flex items, instead of triggering anonymous box > generation? Fwiw, the CSSWG resolved to accept this change this here: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Sep/0038.html ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 10 November 2015 05:51:21 UTC