- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 15:40:55 -0400
- To: Christian Biesinger <cbiesinger@google.com>, Greg Whitworth <gwhit@microsoft.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 03/30/2015 12:33 PM, Christian Biesinger wrote: > Thanks, I'll do the same. I was wondering if I should stretch it > anyway even though it doesn't technically participate in flex layout. > baseline is also the same as flex-start, I assume. Greg is right, it just gets treated as flex-start. Here's the spec text: # The static position of an absolutely-positioned child # of a flex container is determined such that the child # is positioned as if it were the sole flex item in the # flex container, assuming both the child and the flex # container were fixed-size boxes of their used size. If the child is a fixed-size box, then stretch degrades to flex-start. > Would be nice if the spec was a bit more explicit about it! Agreed. :) We're updating the note about "static position rectangle" to help clarify the mental model here. (It's currently got no referrants, so something went missing at some point somewhere.) Also adding a note pointing out how 'stretch' falls back to 'flex-start'. ~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 21 April 2016 19:41:26 UTC