W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2015

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 12:03:47 +1100
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDWbCAjrLJ14ZN_Gp=1X+0-wKSk_BTAiwyU7K3m4xQ8jg@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:05 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> On 09/27/2014 04:00 AM, François REMY wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Absolutely positioned boxes have an available main space of 100vw
> because the initial containing block is 100vw. Why would they not?

That is my reading too, but here's a nice small example of where it's weird:

http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/saved/3409

This has two flexboxes, each with width:40vw flex items.  The first is
a block flexbox, the second is an abspos flexbox.  The block properly
shrinks its children to fit into its available space.  The abspos
doesn't, in the browsers I've tested.

Now, if you set flex-flow:wrap on both of them, they both wrap the
third item to the next line, indicating that the abspos *does* know
how much available space it has (the width of the ICB, 100vw, same as
the block).  I don't know why all browsers have the weird behavior in
the first case, though.

~TJ
Received on Monday, 9 February 2015 01:04:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:52:01 UTC