- From: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
- Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2014 14:23:16 -0800
- To: www-style@w3.org
Hi Tab/fantasai,
I'd still be interested to hear back on these two questions about the
new abspos-flex-item spec text. (see below)
Thanks!
~Daniel
On 09/23/2013 03:50 PM, Daniel Holbert wrote:
> 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 Friday, 3 January 2014 22:23:45 UTC