- From: Javier Fernandez <jfernandez@igalia.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 11:38:46 +0100
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org
Hi, On 12/17/2014 04:22 AM, fantasai wrote: >> So, do we want to allow, even if useless, the combination of 'stretch' >> and <overflow-position> ? > > I don't think so, and I think the structure of the spec should be to > have 'stretch' as one of the <content-distribution> values only, and > to be explicitly listed as an alternative to 'auto' and <baseline-position> > in the *-self properties. I don't agree on having 'stretch' just for <content-distribution> because it makes sense to have such behavior for grid items. > There is no reason to allow its combination with > <overflow-position>: it makes no sense, and its inconsistent with the fact > that combining 'stretch' and <overflow-position> is invalid for the > *-content properties. > I can agree on that, but we could perhaps doing so changing the syntax or defining a new <item-distribution> keyword, as I suggested in other thread. BR -- javi
Received on Wednesday, 17 December 2014 10:39:19 UTC