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: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 08:16:07 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAq87kLDpkTOZfVeDjmULF=cg834z9LnKTRJh5pkGmCzA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Javier Fernandez <jfernandez@igalia.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 2:38 AM, Javier Fernandez <jfernandez@igalia.com> wrote:
> 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.

That's not what she's suggesting; she's saying to move 'stretch' out
of the <item-position> production, back to the *-self properties as a
special keyword.  That way we can make it so that it's impossible to
combine with safe/true.

Received on Wednesday, 17 December 2014 16:16:55 UTC

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