RE: [css-flexbox] IE's flexbox bug & unsufficiently clear spec

> > Hi,
> >
> > While making tests, I just found (what I think is) a bug in IE’s implementation of flexboxes: absolutely positioned flexboxes have an available main space of 100vw and not an infinite one.
> >
> > That being said, I can understand such mistake was made considering the text of the spec:
> >
> > | Determine the available main and cross space
> > | for the flex items.
> > |
> > | For each dimension, if that dimension of the
> > | flex container’s content box is a definite size,
> > | use that;
> > |
> > | Otherwise, subtract the flex container’s margin,
> > | border, and padding from the space available to
> > | the flex container in that dimension and use that
> > | value. [This might result in an infinite value.]
> > |
> > | For example, the available space to a flex item in a
> > | floated auto-sized flex container is:
> > | • the width of the flex container’s containing block
> > | minus the flex container’s margin, border, and
> > | padding in the horizontal dimension.
> > | • infinite in the vertical dimension
> >
> > While it seems rather common for the platform to have an "infinite available size" for positioned elements, it is not very clear from the current wording only. To make sure the mistake doesn't end up being made again, could we maybe add some example focusing on this specific case?
>
> Why doesn't this bottom out with the ICB, which is 100vw wide?

Are you suggesting only IE would be right, and all the others wrong? I initially didn't think so because an absolutely positioned grid using three "auto" or "1fr" columns would not feature this behavior, but it is true that something based on three "inline-block" elements inside a "block" would feature the same 100vw limit, I guess. Should I file the bugs in Blink/Gecko then?

Received on Saturday, 27 September 2014 15:39:05 UTC