Created attachment 120763 [details] Patch

I didn't add test cases for row-reverse/column-reverse to this patch because I wasn't sure what it was supposed to do. It'll still be out of flow, but it's not clear to me where they should be positioned. For example: <div style="display: -webkit-flexbox; -webkit-flex-flow: row-reverse; position: relative"> <div style="position: absolute;">absolute</div> <div style="width: 1000px">main text</div> </div> +---------------------------------------+ |(1)main text (2)+(3) +---------------------------------------+ It's not clear to me if absolute should be at 1, 2 (right aligned) or 3. I guess (2) makes the most sense, but it will require some extra logic to handle properly (i.e., should be a separate patch).

The static position is the upper-right corner of the "main text" div (flush with the inner cross-start edge of the flexbox, and flush with the main-start edge of the following neighbor). Abspos elements put their top-left corner at their static position, so (3) is correct.

Created attachment 120769 [details] Patch

Comment on attachment 120769 [details] Patch Attachment 120769 [details] did not pass chromium-ews (chromium-xvfb): Output: http://queues.webkit.org/results/10924136 New failing tests: http/tests/inspector/resource-tree/resource-tree-document-url.html

Comment on attachment 120769 [details] Patch The spec page hasn't been updated to the consensus from TPAC. The conclusion was to have position:absolute flex items insert a placeholder. All this means is that for flex-pack: justify, the spacing is a bit weird. I'll update the patch to do this instead.

I'm about to go look through the minutes, but I don't recall that actually being the decision. You may want to hold off on making the change immediately while I verify.

(In reply to comment #7) > I'm about to go look through the minutes, but I don't recall that actually being the decision. You may want to hold off on making the change immediately while I verify. That definitely was the conclusion. I think it's silly though. dbaron argued that leaving behind a placeholder makes it consistent with absolute positioning in the rest of the platform (e.g. an absolutely positioned div inside an inline).

(In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #7) > > I'm about to go look through the minutes, but I don't recall that actually being the decision. You may want to hold off on making the change immediately while I verify. > > That definitely was the conclusion. I think it's silly though. dbaron argued that leaving behind a placeholder makes it consistent with absolute positioning in the rest of the platform (e.g. an absolutely positioned div inside an inline). Ah, indeed. Looks like I remembered wrong. Welp, time to go change the spec.

The text has been updated http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-flexbox/#abspos-flexbox-items. We should make sure to add a test for "they'll...join neighboring inline elements in their anonymous flexbox item wrapper boxes."

(In reply to comment #10) > The text has been updated http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-flexbox/#abspos-flexbox-items. > > We should make sure to add a test for "they'll...join neighboring inline elements in their anonymous flexbox item wrapper boxes." You probably want three tests, for the following situations: <flexbox> <div /> <abspos /> text </flexbox> <flexbox> text <abspos /> <div /> </flexbox> <flexbox> <div /> text <abspos /> text <div /> </flexbox> Using 'flex-pack:justify' for all three of them to make it easier to tell what's happening.

Created attachment 121750 [details] Patch

Comment on attachment 121750 [details] Patch r=me

Comment on attachment 121750 [details] Patch Clearing flags on attachment: 121750 Committed r104645: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/104645>

All reviewed patches have been landed. Closing bug.