Re: [css-flexbox] static position of absolutely-positioned flex items still "at-risk"?

Hi Tab/fantasai,

Still interested in hearing back on this -- in particular:
 - Can you clarify whether "it" refers to the abspos child or the flex
container in the last clause of the spec-quote below? ("assuming it was
a fixed size box")
 - Should flex-grow/shrink/basis have any effect on the sizing of abspos
children, now that we're treating them as if they were flex items?

Thanks,
~Daniel

On 09/12/2013 10:34 AM, Daniel Holbert wrote:
> On 09/11/2013 03:05 PM, fantasai wrote:
>> P.S. Let me know if that makes sense. :)
> 
> One clarification on the new spec text:
> 
>  # Its static position is calculated by first doing full
>  # flex layout without the absolutely-positioned elements,
>  # then positioning each absolutely-positioned child as
>  # if it were the sole flex item in the flex container,
>  # assuming it was a fixed size box of its used size.
> 
> It'd be worth clarifying whether the "it" in that last line refers to
> the abspos child or the container. (I think it refers to the container?)
> i.e. I think "assuming _the flex container_ was a fixed size box of its
> used size" would be clearer.
> 
> ALSO, one question: should we honor "flex-grow" on abspos children now?
> (so e.g. "flex: 1" on an abspos child would make its main-size grow to
> the container's main-size, modulo limitations imposed by
> max-width/max-height)
> 
> ~Daniel
>

Received on Monday, 23 September 2013 22:50:42 UTC