- From: Stephen Hay <haymail@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 20:37:06 +0200
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
I meant flex *items*. :) On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 8:31 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 4:24 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: >> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-ui/#text-overflow says: >> # This property specifies rendering when inline content overflows >> # its block container element ("the block") in its inline >> # progression direction that has ‘overflow’ other than ‘visible’. >> >> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-flexbox/#flex-containers says: >> # Flex containers are not block containers, >> >> Yet https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=912434 was filed >> with the expectation that text-overflow work on flexboxes, which >> seems like a pretty reasonable expectation to me. >> >> Should it? > > Flex containers never contain inline content - they coerce all their > children into blocks (sometimes anonymous ones). Flex *items* can > contain inline content, and they're whatever type of container their > 'display' says they are. > > That said, I'm not opposed to special-casing flexboxes so that > anonymous flex items take their 'text-overflow' value from the > flexbox. Any more properties that we should do this for? > > ~TJ >
Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2013 18:37:33 UTC