For the reference case that was updated in this patch -- flexbox-collapsed-item-horiz-001-ref.html: I wrote it based on an older version of the flexbox spec, which excluded `visibility:collapse` during flex layout... https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-css-flexbox-1-20140325/#visibility-collapse ...but **did not** exclude `visibility:collapse` items during intrinsic sizing: https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-css-flexbox-1-20140325/#intrinsic-sizes ("The max-content main size of a flex container is the sum of the flex container’s items' max-size contributions in the main axis." -- note "items", no exclusion of items-that-are-collapsed, or special definition for their max-size contribution) I briefly thought this issue persisted in the current flexbox spec, and I filed https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/14039 to get that addressed -- but after filing, I noticed it does now call out "non-collapsed items" as the things to be considered during intrinsic sizing (in https://drafts.csswg.org/css-flexbox/#intrinsic-sizes ). So: tl;dr, the test change makes sense. :)
Bug 2046642 Comment 3 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
For the reference case that was updated in this patch -- flexbox-collapsed-item-horiz-001-ref.html: I wrote it based on an older version of the flexbox spec, which accounted for `visibility:collapse` during flex layout... https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-css-flexbox-1-20140325/#visibility-collapse ...but **did not** have any special handling/exclusion for `visibility:collapse` items during intrinsic sizing: https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-css-flexbox-1-20140325/#intrinsic-sizes ("The max-content main size of a flex container is the sum of the flex container’s items' max-size contributions in the main axis." -- note "items", no exclusion of items-that-are-collapsed, or special definition for their max-size contribution) I briefly thought this issue persisted in the current flexbox spec, and I filed https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/14039 to get that addressed -- but after filing, I noticed it does now call out "non-collapsed items" as the things to be considered during intrinsic sizing (in https://drafts.csswg.org/css-flexbox/#intrinsic-sizes ). So: tl;dr, the test change makes sense. :)
For the reference case that was updated in this patch -- flexbox-collapsed-item-horiz-001-ref.html: I wrote it based on an older version of the flexbox spec, which accounted for `visibility:collapse` during flex layout... https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-css-flexbox-1-20140325/#visibility-collapse ...but **did not** have any special handling/exclusion for `visibility:collapse` items during intrinsic sizing: https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-css-flexbox-1-20140325/#intrinsic-sizes (*"The max-content main size of a flex container is the sum of the flex container’s items' max-size contributions in the main axis."* -- note "items", no exclusion of items-that-are-collapsed, or special definition for their max-size contribution) I briefly thought this issue persisted in the current flexbox spec, and I filed https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/14039 to get that addressed -- but after filing, I noticed it does now call out "non-collapsed items" as the things to be considered during intrinsic sizing (in https://drafts.csswg.org/css-flexbox/#intrinsic-sizes ). So: tl;dr, the test change makes sense. :)
For the reference case that was updated in this patch -- flexbox-collapsed-item-horiz-001-ref.html: I wrote it based on an older version of the flexbox spec, which accounted for `visibility:collapse` during flex layout... https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-css-flexbox-1-20140325/#visibility-collapse ...but **did not** have any special handling/exclusion for `visibility:collapse` items during intrinsic sizing: https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-css-flexbox-1-20140325/#intrinsic-sizes (*"The max-content main size of a flex container is the sum of the flex container’s items' max-size contributions in the main axis."* -- note "items", no exclusion of items-that-are-collapsed, or special definition for their max-size contribution) I briefly thought this issue persisted in the current flexbox spec, and I filed https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/14039 to get that addressed -- but after filing, I noticed it does now call out "non-collapsed items" as the things to be considered during intrinsic sizing (in https://drafts.csswg.org/css-flexbox/#intrinsic-sizes ). So: tl;dr, the test change makes sense and is aligned with the spec. :)