I am not allowed to credit the site that has this disaster. Its owner said “Nobody should see that”

  • bleistift2English
    1·
    1 month ago

    That’s interesting. Chrome displays it as you intended, Firefox doesn’t. I guess it’s required that the vertical flex be inline-flex?

    • drathvedro@lemm.ee
      1·
      1 month ago

      Huh, neat. The last time I looked, chrome was also plagued by this. Might actually re-start some projects I had, but it sucks to have to use chrome.

      inline-flex is indeed necessary since we’re growing left to right and flex would take the entire/fixed width, unless it’s also inside a flexbox.

      • bleistift2English
        1·
        1 month ago

        it sucks to have to use chrome

        I also hate to admit it, but Chrome currently is the superior browser.

        • drathvedro@lemm.ee
          1·
          1 month ago

          Chromium is a superior engine, yes. But Chrome itself, at least in my eyes, looks to be the least capable browser out of the bunch. I’d rather Vivaldi if I had to switch.

        • drathvedro@lemm.ee
          1·
          1 month ago

          EDIT: Alright, this is a terrible case because the parent element has flex and therefore no inline-flex is necessary there, but I’d argue it’s the parent element being flex that is redundant, rather than child element being inline.

          • Aux@lemmy.world
            1·
            1 month ago

            Inline means that your element should be treated like text. If your element is not text, then you shouldn’t use inline. In this screenshot the element is text, so it’s ok.