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.
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.
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.
That’s interesting. Chrome displays it as you intended, Firefox doesn’t. I guess it’s required that the vertical flex be
inline-flex?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-flexis indeed necessary since we’re growing left to right and flex would take the entire/fixed width, unless it’s also inside a flexbox.Inline is never needed and you already know that.
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.
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.
I also hate to admit it, but Chrome currently is the superior browser.
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.