On 09/11/2013 03:05 PM, fantasai wrote: > P.S. Let me know if that makes sense. :) One clarification on the new spec text: # Its static position is calculated by first doing full # flex layout without the absolutely-positioned elements, # then positioning each absolutely-positioned child as # if it were the sole flex item in the flex container, # assuming it was a fixed size box of its used size. It'd be worth clarifying whether the "it" in that last line refers to the abspos child or the container. (I think it refers to the container?) i.e. I think "assuming _the flex container_ was a fixed size box of its used size" would be clearer. ALSO, one question: should we honor "flex-grow" on abspos children now? (so e.g. "flex: 1" on an abspos child would make its main-size grow to the container's main-size, modulo limitations imposed by max-width/max-height) ~Daniel
Received on Thursday, 12 September 2013 17:35:05 UTC
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4