- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 03:55:10 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27931 --- Comment #8 from Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> --- (In reply to Tab Atkins Jr. from comment #7) > (In reply to Philip Jägenstedt from comment #5) > > No reply from Tab. Here's a related Gecko bug: > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1099052 > > Whoops, I missed that email because it came in while I was in Sydney; my > email glut afterwards was horrific and still hasn't been fully processed. > > The flex difference is because the fullscreen element is placed in an > anonymous flexbox that fills the screen. "none" means the element stays its > natural size, while "1" means it'll stretch to fill the screen if possible > (and importantly, *shrink* to fit in the screen if oversized). Does this matter when the fullscreen element is also has !important UA style sheet rules for top, right, bottom, left, width, min-width, max-width, height, min-height and max-height to make it fill the screen? In 10 minutes of tinkering I couldn't find a case where flex could have any influence, but I could very well be mistaken. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 15 March 2015 03:55:12 UTC