Re: [css-align] Editorial: the 'stretch' definition moved, but the section titles weren't updated accordingly

On 09/06/2014 01:17 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> In more details, my comments are:
>> - Section 3.1's title still mentions ‘strecth’ (yet the section doesn't
>> define it)
>> - Section 3.3's title doesn’t mention ‘stretch’ (yet the section does define
>> it)
>> I believe the section titles should be updated to match their content (or
>> vice-versa).
> Fixed by updating the headings.

Even that heading and section content is now coherent, I think we have
missed some info with this movement; perhaps the old one is not valid

The previous definition of the "stretch" value, as <item-position>, was
the following one:

"If the ‘width’ or ‘height’ (as appropriate) of the alignment subject is
‘auto’, its used value is the length necessary to make the alignment
subject’s outer size as close to the size of the alignment container as
possible, while still respecting the constraints imposed by
‘min/max-width/height’. Otherwise, this is equivalent to ‘start’."

The new definition, now as <content-distribution>, has the following

"If the combined size of the items is less than the size of the
alignment container, any auto-sized items have their size increased
equally so that the combined size exactly fills the alignment container,
and then clamped by their max-width/max-height constraints."

The justify-{items, self} and align-{items, self} properties allow
"stretch" as of of the possible valid values, but I'm not sure whether
the new definition applies to the justify-self property, for instance.
What items are being considered for this property to be stretched ?



Received on Friday, 3 October 2014 19:06:27 UTC