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

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

From: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 16:26:08 +0100
Message-ID: <DUB405-EAS1603159F5FE60FF1F275279A52B0@phx.gbl>
To: "'fantasai'" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, <www-style@w3.org>
± De : fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net]
± > ± I don't understand. What do you think needs clarification?
± >
± > According to your reading of the spec [1] IE was the only browser matching
± the spec because he capped the absolute flexbox at 100vw for the purposes
± of flexing.
± >
± > However, we learnt here that Spartan will revert to the Chrome's behavior
± [2], which is to refuse to cap an absolutely positioned flexbox at 100vw. To be
± honest this is the behavior that was intuitive to me.
± >
± > This means we now have 3-render-engines interoperability on a behavior
± which you claimed isn't what the spec says. That's why I think we should
± clarify explicitly the behavior of absolutely positioned flexboxes in the spec
± (possibly as an informal note), and not rely on the indirect interaction of
± multiple other specs; that can be confusing.
± That's ridiculous. Nowhere does flexbox say that "only if you're absolutely
± positioned, use infinity instead of the containing block width as the available
± width for the flex container". 

Yet this is what all browser do, right now [1]. Please, could you finally acknowledge that fact? The only one applying the behavior defined in the spec was IE, and Microsoft changed the behavior in IE12 to match Chrome. So all browsers *do* ignore the containing block width when flexbox elements are absolutely positioned. If we want the spec to progress further to a REC soon, we need to make the spec match implementations. 

I understand that what browser do doesn't seem logical to you, but it's not my fault, I didn't implement their flexbox layout algorithms, I'm just telling it to you because either all browsers or the spec will need to be changed, and it's more likely the spec is what will actually change. So, I'm sorry if I annoy you with my constructive comments, but I would really appreciate it if you could be less rude with me. I do this on my free time, and I'm really trying to help...
[1] See http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/saved/3409 sent by Tab Atkins.

(image/png attachment: Sans_titre.png)

Received on Saturday, 21 February 2015 15:26:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:51 UTC