- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 18:18:02 -0700
- To: Christian Biesinger <cbiesinger@google.com>
- Cc: Greg Whitworth <gwhit@microsoft.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Christian Biesinger <cbiesinger@google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 7:32 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> If you're implementing the Alignment properties for abspos at all, >> yeah, you should do it properly. It's perfectly okay at the moment to >> implement them for only *some* layout types; we'd prefer they get >> properly implemented for everything, but that's a good bit of work. >> If you don't want to do Alignment for abspos *at all* yet, that's >> fine, but you shouldn't do a partial implementation of abspos >> alignment. > > OK, am I understanding you right that a conforming flexbox > implementation can ignore the second and third paragraph of > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-flexbox/#abspos-items? You still have to give it a static position. If you're not implementing the alignment properties for abspos yet, it should take its initial values, which'll align it to the start/start corner and size it "normally". (We're not going to specify how to partially implement a property, because that's silly, but I'm fine with giving personal guidance on how to do so.) ~TJ
Received on Friday, 10 April 2015 01:18:51 UTC