- From: Javier Fernandez <jfernandez@igalia.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 18:51:05 +0100
- 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