W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2014

Re: [css-flexbox] Questions on absolutely-positioned flex items (WAS: [css-flexbox] static position of absolutely-positioned flex items still "at-risk"?)

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 15:15:59 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDD9v3XQ9QHd+PW8Gk2e9SYGJ-w6QArxMHesR47gt88Yg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Sorry about the delay!

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> 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.

"It" was meant to consistently refer to the element in that paragraph,
but that particular instance also makes sense to apply to the
container.  I've clarified the sentence.

>>> 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)

Nope, abspos children are not flex items, and 'flex' only has an
effect on flex items.

Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2014 23:16:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:36 UTC