- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 13:18:36 -0700
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: Christian Biesinger <cbiesinger@google.com>, Greg Whitworth <gwhit@microsoft.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 12:40 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > 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'. And staticpos of an abspos is now more thoroughly defined in Align: <https://drafts.csswg.org/css-align/#justify-abspos-static> Until "static position rectangle" is actually defined in Position for the other layout modes, this is *technically* hand-wavey, but you get the gist. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 21 April 2016 20:19:24 UTC