Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-flexbox-1] Should 'align-content: stretch' use 'safe' in the fallback value? (#11641)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-flexbox-1] Should 'align-content: stretch' use 'safe' in the fallback value?`, and agreed to the following:

* ``RESOLVED: Accept the PR, `stretch` falls back to `flex-start`, not `safe flex-start` ``

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;TabAtkins> fantasai: We'd tried to correct some of the flexbox values to fall back to ...<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> fantasai: ...do safe alignment, and stretch is one that someone raised a q about<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> fantasai: currently it's not clear. impls use flex-start as the fallback, rather than `safe flex-start`<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> fantasai: i think the right thing to do is to use safe alignment so we dont' lose content off the unsafe edge, but we might not be able to do that<br>
&lt;oriol> q+<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> astearns: so, due to webcompat, we shoudl close no change?<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> fantasai: that seems to be the conclusion<br>
&lt;astearns> ack oriol<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> oriol: i think it's the opposite. my understanding is spec is saying it shoudl be `safe flex-start`, we implemented in Servo, everyone else is doing `flex-start`<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> astearns: right, i was confused about what was actually in the spec<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> astearns: so proposed is to accept the PR, changing the fallback to not use `safe`<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> astearns: objections?<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> RESOLVED: Accept the PR, `stretch` falls back to `flex-start`, not `safe flex-start`<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/11641#issuecomment-3005385155 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2025 16:20:34 UTC