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

Re: [css-align] Issues with <overflow-position>

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 19:37:26 -0800
Message-ID: <5490FA76.1070909@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 06/20/2013 04:06 PM, Julien Chaffraix wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> While reading on the new properties, it seems that there are some
> cases where <overflow-position> has no default or cannot be
> overridden:
> * <overflow-position> should have a default value for all types of
> layout and all properties that is either true or safe (or else there
> is a need for a third default value). Currently this is not the case
> for at least the following cases:
>     - justify-self with table cells and any layout that doesn't belong
> to the one listed.
>     - align-self in the same conditions and block-level boxes.
>     - justify-items and align-items

This doesn't make sense. There is no default behavior if the property
doesn't apply. (Note the default is never computed; it is just behavioral.)

> * With the current syntax, it is possible to set the <item-position>
> in such a way that you can't override the <overflow-position> in the
> 'baseline' and 'stretch' cases. This is because it's not allowed to
> set the <overflow-position> for those 2 values and thus it defaults to
> what is the default for the current layout.

<overflow-position> modulates the fallback behavior after a fallback
position takes effect. We could add fallback positions for baseline
and stretch, and those could take <overflow-position>, but I don't
think it makes sense to apply <overflow-position> direction to baseline
and stretch.

Received on Wednesday, 17 December 2014 03:38:07 UTC

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