- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <noreply@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 16:20:33 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
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> <TabAtkins> fantasai: We'd tried to correct some of the flexbox values to fall back to ...<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: ...do safe alignment, and stretch is one that someone raised a q about<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: currently it's not clear. impls use flex-start as the fallback, rather than `safe flex-start`<br> <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> <oriol> q+<br> <TabAtkins> astearns: so, due to webcompat, we shoudl close no change?<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: that seems to be the conclusion<br> <astearns> ack oriol<br> <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> <TabAtkins> astearns: right, i was confused about what was actually in the spec<br> <TabAtkins> astearns: so proposed is to accept the PR, changing the fallback to not use `safe`<br> <TabAtkins> astearns: objections?<br> <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