- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 18:59:31 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 09/04/2013 11:31 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. 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? I agree with dholbert. Especially given that <div style="text-overflow: ellipsis"> <div>some text</div> </div> doesn't work, I don't think it makes sense to special-case things so that adding "display: flex" to that outer <div> makes it work. ~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 5 September 2013 02:00:00 UTC