Update: as a follow-up to this article, I’ve created the Github repo Flexbugs: a community curated list of cross-browser flexbox issues and their known workarounds. The goal is if you’re building a website using flexbox, and something isn’t working as you’d expect, you can find the solution there.

Way back in September of 2013, while testing my Solved by Flexbox project, I discovered a bug in Internet Explorer 10 and 11 that was preventing my sticky footer from actually sticking to the bottom of the page. I spent some time trying to work around the issue, but all my attempts failed.

At first I was really annoyed. Before flexbox, it was impossible to build a sticky footer layout with just CSS unless you knew the exact dimensions of both the header and footer.[1] Flexbox changed this—finally we had respectable CSS solutions to today’s modern, responsive layouts.

After my initial disappointment, I eventually concluded that this honestly wasn’t that big of a deal, and I released the project, despite the buggy behavior. I mean, from a progressive enhancement standpoint, my solution was still pretty good. It worked in Chrome, Firefox, Opera, and Safari, and while it wasn’t perfect in Internet Explorer, it wasn’t completely broken either. The content was still accessible, and it would only render incorrectly on pages with minimal content. On longer pages, it looked just like every other browser.

A few weeks ago I received a pull request on Github that fixed the sticky footer issue with an IE-only @media rule. This got me thinking about the problem again, and I was determined to find a solution that didn’t require any browser-specific hacks.

As it turns out, there was a solution, and it was possible all along! I just wasn’t looking hard enough.

In this article, I’ll explain the solution, walk you through how I got there, and talk about the browser bugs I discovered along the way. I’ll also make some recommendations for how to write more cross-browser-compatible flexbox code in the future.

So what are the bugs?

The flexbox specification is not yet finalized, so there’s naturally going to be some lag between the latest drafts and browser implementations. This article is not meant to point fingers at any parties for being behind; instead, it’s meant to help front-end developers do what we do best—manage browser inconsistencies.

The following is a list of bugs I encountered while trying to get my sticky footer demo to work cross-browser:

In IE 10-11, flex items ignore their parent container’s height if it’s set via the min-height property.

property. Chrome, Opera, and Safari fail to honor the default minimum content sizing of flex items.

IE 10-11 don’t allow unitless flex-basis values in the flex shorthand.

The min-height bug

In Internet Explorer 10 and 11, the min-height property can be used to size a flex container in the column direction, but that container’s flex item children will act as if they don’t know the size of their parent—as if no height has been set at all.

This is a problem for my sticky footer demo since sticky footer layouts traditionally require a min-height declaration of 100% (or 100vh ) to ensure that the content area is at least as tall as the browser window.

Since min-height wasn’t going to work, I needed to find another way.

Minimum content sizing of flex items

When flex items are too big to fit inside their container, those items are instructed (by the flex layout algorithm) to shrink, proportionally, according to their flex-shrink property. But contrary to what many browsers allow, they’re not supposed to shrink indefinitely. They must always be at least as big as their minimum height or width properties declare, and if no minimum height or width properties are set, their minimum size should be the default minimum size of their content.

According to the flexbox specification:

By default, flex items won’t shrink below their minimum content size (the length of the longest word or fixed-size element). To change this, set the min-width or min-height property.

Chrome, Opera, and Safari currently ignore this instruction and allow flex items to shrink to zero. As a result, you get content overlapping.

Unitless flex-basis

Prior to the release of IE 10, the flexbox spec at the time stated that a flexbox item’s preferred size required a unit when using the flex shorthand:

If the <preferred-size> is ‘0’, it must be specified with a unit (like ‘0px’) to avoid ambiguity; unitless zero will either be interpreted as as one of the flexibilities, or is a syntax error.

This is no longer true in the spec, but IE 10-11 still treat it as true. If you use the declaration flex: 1 0 0 in one of these browsers, it will be an error and the entire rule (including all the flexibility properties) will be ignored.

I choose the sticky footer layout as the main example for this article because I encountered each and every one of these bugs while trying to find a cross-browser solution to it. But before I go into too many specifics, let’s make sure we’re all on the same page.

Here is the markup I’m using for my sticky footer layout:

< body class = "Site" > < header class = "Site-header" > … </ header > < main class = "Site-content" > … </ main > < footer class = "Site-footer" > … </ footer > </ body >

And here’s the CSS that will make the footer stick in any spec-compliant browser:

.Site { display : flex; flex-direction : column; min-height : 100vh ; } .Site-content { flex : 1 ; }

Now, as I’ve already mentioned, this CSS should work, but due to the existing bugs and the fact that not all browsers are fully spec-compliant, it does not.

If you’re an experienced front-end developer, you know that any solution to a cross-browser problem not only needs to work today, but it needs to continue to work long after you finish a project.

A solution that depends on buggy behavior is no solution at all.

Based on everything I’ve said so far, here are my personal requirements for any acceptable alternative solution to the sticky footer layout problem. It must:

work in all browsers [2]

continue to work as browsers fix broken behavior

not rely on any browser-specific hack

Using height instead of min-height

If you’ve been around for a while, you may remember that Internet Explorer 6 never supported the min-height (or width) property. It did, however, treat height:100% the same way other browsers treated min-height:100% , so all the original sticky footer solutions would recommend setting height:100% in an IE 6-only stylesheet.

Knowing this, using height:100vh instead of min-height:100vh was one of the first workarounds I tried. It actually did work in IE, but it didn’t work in Chrome, so I immediately wrote it off.

As it turns out, I should have read the spec closer instead of simply assuming Chrome was right and IE was wrong.

In CSS, you typically choose to use min-height over height to protect yourself from the dreaded overflow. When there’s too much content, an explicit height will mean there’s either going to be clipping, overlapping, or a scroll bar. And in many situations, those are all bad. However, when you’re dealing with the body element (as you are in a sticky footer layout), a scroll bar is no big deal. It’s actually what you want. So if you define an explicit height of 100vh on the body and there’s too much content, the end result should be the same.

So then the question is: why didn’t this work in Chrome?

Minimum sizing bugs

Previously, I mentioned that some browsers mistakenly allow flex items to shrink to less than their default minimum content size, resulting in content overlap. This is why swapping min-height for height didn’t work when I tested it in Chrome.

What should happen is the header, footer, and content elements should all shrink to their default minimum content size (but not less). If these elements (combined) have more content than can fit on the screen, the body element should overflow with a scroll bar like it usually does. The header, footer, and content elements should all render normally, one on top of the other, with no overlap.

What was happening instead is Chrome was allowing the header, footer, and content elements to shrink to smaller than their default minimum content sizes. As a result, instead of the overflow happening on the body element, it was happening on the header, footer, and content elements themselves. And since the default overflow value of those elements is visible , their content was overlapping with each other. The footer was fixed to the bottom of the page, and the page content was overflowing below it.

Luckily, there’s an easy solution to this problem.

The flexbox spec defines an initial flex-shrink value of 1 but says items should not shrink below their default minimum content size. You can get pretty much this exact same behavior by using a flex-shrink value of 0 instead of the default 1 .[3] If your element is already being sized based on its children, and it hasn’t set a width , height , or flex-basis value, then setting flex-shrink:0 will render it the same way—but it will avoid this bug.

Avoiding unitless flex-basis

The unitless flex-basis bug is by far the easiest of the three to work around, but it’s arguably the hardest one to track down when encountered in the wild.

My original solution to the sticky footer problem applied a declaration of flex:1 to the main content element. Since a flex value of 1 is shorthand for 1 1 0px ,[4] and since I knew I didn’t want any shrinkage going on, I decided to use 1 0 0px instead.

This worked just fine until I tested it in IE.

The problem ended up being a combination of this IE bug and my CSS minifier: the minifier was converting 1 0 0px to 1 0 0 (which has a unitless flex-basis value), so IE 10-11 ignored this declaration entirely.

Once I finally discovered the root of the problem, the fix was trivial. Either set an explicit flex-basis value or use 0% in the flex shorthand. Note, using 0% is better than 0px since most minifiers won’t touch percentage values for other reasons.

Putting it all together

The following is a quick summary of the bugs discussed in this article and their respective solutions:

min-height on a column flex container won’t apply to its flex item children in IE 10-11. Use height instead if possible.

on a column flex container won’t apply to its flex item children in IE 10-11. Use instead if possible. Chrome, Opera, and Safari do not honor the default min-content size of flex items. Set flex-shrink to 0 (instead of the default 1 ) to avoid unwanted shrinkage.

to (instead of the default ) to avoid unwanted shrinkage. Do not use unitless flex-basis values in the flex shorthand because IE 10-11 will error. Also use 0% instead of 0px since minifiers will often convert 0px to 0 (which is unitless and will have the same problem).

With all these bug and workarounds in mind, here is the final, alternative solution I came up with. It may not be as clean or intuitive as the way I originally promoted, but it does meet all of my requirements for an alternative solution:

It works in all browsers.

It’s spec compliant, so it should continue to work as bugs are fixed.

It does not use any browser-specific hacks.

I’ve added comments to the CSS to clarify which parts are workarounds:

.Site { display : flex; flex-direction : column; height : 100vh ; } .Site-header , .Site-footer { flex-shrink : 0 ; } .Site-content { flex : 1 0 auto; }

To see this new solution in action, check out the updated Solved by Flexbox sticky footer demo.