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: Javier Fernandez <jfernandez@igalia.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 11:38:46 +0100
Message-ID: <54915D36.9020600@igalia.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org

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


Received on Wednesday, 17 December 2014 10:39:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:46 UTC