W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2014

Re: [css-align] Editorial: the 'stretch' definition moved, but the section titles weren't updated accordingly

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 19:22:19 -0800
Message-ID: <5490F6EB.7030508@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 10/08/2014 09:13 AM, Javier Fernandez wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the clarification.
> I think part of the confusion comes from the fact that 'stretch' is
> special since it seems to be something in the middle of both, alignment
> position and distribution. Actually, I've got some additional doubts,
> considering now the last draft of the spec, see below.
>
> On 10/08/2014 12:49 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>
>> I've re-added "stretch" as a value for <item-position>, keeping it as
>> a value for <content-distribution> as well, and made sure that
>> everything links to the correct definition.
>>
>
> The fact that 'stretch' is ignored when the item breadth is longer than
> the area makes the <overflow-alignment>  keyword useless. I guess that's
> why in some versions of the spec the align-{self, items} and
> justify-{self, items} property syntax considered the 'stretch' as a
> keyword value, not allowing the combination with the overflow.
>
> Last version:    auto | stretch | baseline | [ <item-position> &&
> <overflow-position>? ]
> Current draft:  auto | <baseline-position> | [ <item-position> &&
> <overflow-position>? ]
>
> So in the current draft, 'stretch safe/true', for instance, is a valid
> expression (useless, but valid), which is coherent with the
> justify-content and align-content syntax:
>
> Last version:  auto | baseline | [ <content-distribution>
> <content-position>? | <content-position> ] && <overflow-position>?
>
> Current draft: auto | <baseline-position> | [ <content-distribution>? &&
> <content-position>? ]! && <overflow-position>?
>
> 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. 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.

~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 17 December 2014 03:23:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:49 UTC