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

Re: [css-align] Combining 'stretch' with 'true'/'safe'

From: Javier Fernandez <jfernandez@igalia.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 18:51:05 +0100
Message-ID: <5491C289.3030605@igalia.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org >> www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>
Hi,

On 12/17/2014 06:08 PM, fantasai wrote:
>> I asked explicitly to get back the definition of 'stretch' for items
>> because it was a lot of sense to have such behavior. We could perhaps
>> tweak the syntax as it's suggested below, but we should definitively
>> have different 'stretch' concepts for items and content.
> 
> We updated the wording defining the <content-distribution> keywords,
> so the wording should actually now work for both cases.
> 

Ah, makes sense.

>>> So we'd like feedback on this issue:
>>>
>
>> If we want to have a similar syntax for item positioning, we could
>> perhaps define a new <item-distribution> keyword, which would have
>> obviously 'stretch', but also some other <content-distribution> values.
>> This would allow to define the distribution of several items placed in
>> the same grid cell, for instance.
> 
> Since it's logical to at some point add fallback alignment for 'stretch',
> I don't think it makes sense to allow the combination with 'stretch',
> but instead to allow the combination with the fallback alignment, once
> it is added [whether in this level or the next].
> 
>

Ok, I understand. I agree on not allowing the combination of 'stretch'
and 'overflow', as we are doing now for Content Distribution.

--
javi
Received on Wednesday, 17 December 2014 17:51:38 UTC

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