- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 16:23:55 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-flexbox] align-content: stretch for abspos children of flex containers should align with browser behavior.`, and agreed to the following: * `RESOLVED: ignore the effect of align-content properties on absolutely positioned elements in flex` * `RESOLVED: open an issue on justify-content` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <astearns> topic: [css-flexbox] align-content: stretch for abspos children of flex containers should align with browser behavior.<br> <astearns> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7596<br> <argyle> astearns: first is flexbox align-content<br> <argyle> astearns: is this something that you want to introduce Ryan?<br> <argyle> rreno: the specific scenario is flexbox, when your computing the static position of absolultely posistioned children of flex containers<br> <fantasai> s/posistioned/positioned/<br> <bramus> s/absolultely/absolutely<br> <bramus> s/absolultely/absolutely/<br> <argyle> rreno: the problem is, the spec for alignmen defers to flexbox in this scenario, and flex specifies that when the container has negative available size, like an absolute positioned child that's larger than the container<br> <argyle> rreno: when that'sthe case, supposed to fallback to flex start, but no browsers do that<br> <argyle> rreno:<br> <argyle> rreno: my proposal is align the spec to what the proposal is doing, ignoring alignment content, but the browsers are. lets align spec text with what the browsers are doing<br> <argyle> rreno: it's essentially the default based on how browsers are currently operating<br> <argyle> astearns: any other opinions on making this change?<br> <argyle> TabAtkins: from fantasai and I's opinion, we approve of this change<br> <astearns> q+ iank_<br> <argyle> dholbert: firefox does actually honor align-content for abs pos flex children<br> <argyle> dholbert: in most cases<br> <argyle> dholbert: this resolution we make us start ignoring it. this would be a behavior change for firefox. i'm ok with it.<br> <argyle> dholbert: specifically for this align-content for abs pos flex children<br> <astearns> ack fantasai<br> <argyle> fantasai: wanted to confirm we keep grid and flexbox aligned on this point<br> <argyle> fantasai: so they ideally they both grid and flex behave the ssame with regards to this property<br> <astearns> ack iank_<br> <bramus> s/ssame/same/<br> <argyle> iank_: i'm a little bit confused, ryan, previously you wanted to okeep respecting, liek change webkit to match gecko, now that's not the case?<br> <argyle> rreno: we would like to change webkit ot match geckko, however, i was also trying to match the spec when implementing this..<br> <argyle> rreno: none of the browsers do the fallback to flex start<br> <argyle> rreno: my proposal was to remove tha tback to flex-start<br> <argyle> rreno: we're currently shipping webkit, we can rollout a patch i have. did that answer the question?<br> <argyle> iank_: yeah, just not sure we're exactly.. maybe if we had a proposed resolution that would clarify<br> <argyle> iank_: tab you were saying we should ignore both justify and align-content, is that correct?<br> <argyle> TabAtkins: ignoring the content properties for abs pos children<br> <argyle> iank_: i think we're taling about 2 separate things here<br> <argyle> rreno: fwiw, my proposal was a scoped change. maybe a new topic for another time<br> <argyle> iank_: do we just want to consider dropping align-content behavior, that would mean chromium and webkit stays the same, and firefox does the change<br> <argyle> rreno:<br> <argyle> rreno: that's fine with me<br> <dholbert_webclient> s/rreno/dholbert/<br> <argyle> astearns: tab, does the scoped proposal make sense? or you want to remove all of the scenarios?<br> <argyle> TabAtkins: i'm fine with doing this in stages, dont have to do all at once<br> <iank_> q+<br> <astearns> ack fantasai<br> <argyle> fantasai: all browsers honor justify content of abs children, and 2 of them are ignroning align-contenet, firefox is honoring it<br> <argyle> fantasai: in grid, all brwosers are ignoring both of them<br> <astearns> ack iank_<br> <argyle> iank_: that's correct. extra context: i've added a use counter in chrome to see what the impact would be of dropping justify-content<br> <argyle> iank_: in flex, to see if that had substantial behavior change. we can deal with that later if you like<br> <argyle> astearns: a proposed resolution could be: ignore the effect of align-content properties on abs pos element in flex and grid. open a new issue on whether or not we make the same change to justify-content<br> <argyle> astearns: is there anyone who wants to argue against that?<br> <argyle> dholbert_webclient: not against it, clarifying this is only scoped to flex. no proposed change for gird<br> <argyle> astearns: is it clear in the spec? that align-content shouhld be ignored in grid<br> <argyle> dholbert_webclient: i think so<br> <argyle> iank_: this sort of flex behavior comes from the older logic of how to determine static pos in flex. assume you're the only flex item and positiong yourself and if your not a flex item. grid came along and didnt have that logic. for some history<br> <argyle> astearns: we are resolved.<br> <argyle> astearns: proposed resolution: ignore the effect of align-content properties on abs pos element in flex. we are resolved<br> <argyle> astearns: proposed resolution: ignore the effect of align-content properties on abs pos element in flex<br> <argyle> astearns: we do need to open a new issue on justify-content<br> <argyle> astearns: hearing no objections, we're resolved<br> <argyle> RESOLVED: ignore the effect of align-content properties on absolutely positioned elements in flex<br> <argyle> RESOLVED: open an issue on justify-content<br> <argyle> astearns: so who's going to open a new issue. can i ask you iank_ ?<br> <argyle> iank_: sure, i can do that<br> <bradk> If the positioned thing is display:flex, then align-content still applies to its children though, right?<br> <argyle> astearns: brad had a question in the chat<br> <argyle> iank_: aw yes, this is for abs pos for determining the static pos<br> <argyle> bradk: make sure, talking about how the align-content on the parent of the abs items effects the abs pos items, but if the abs positioned items is flex, it still applies to their children right?<br> <argyle> iank_: this is just for static pos<br> <argyle> bradk: make sure it's clear in the spec<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7596#issuecomment-1225952646 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 24 August 2022 16:23:57 UTC