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

Hi,

Thanks for the clarification.
I think part of the confusion comes from the fact that 'stretch' is
special since it seems to be something in the middle of both, alignment
position and distribution. Actually, I've got some additional doubts,
considering now the last draft of the spec, see below.

On 10/08/2014 12:49 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> 
> I've re-added "stretch" as a value for <item-position>, keeping it as
> a value for <content-distribution> as well, and made sure that
> everything links to the correct definition.
> 

The fact that 'stretch' is ignored when the item breadth is longer than
the area makes the <overflow-alignment>  keyword useless. I guess that's
why in some versions of the spec the align-{self, items} and
justify-{self, items} property syntax considered the 'stretch' as a
keyword value, not allowing the combination with the overflow.

Last version:    auto | stretch | baseline | [ <item-position> &&
<overflow-position>? ]
Current draft:  auto | <baseline-position> | [ <item-position> &&
<overflow-position>? ]

So in the current draft, 'stretch safe/true', for instance, is a valid
expression (useless, but valid), which is coherent with the
justify-content and align-content syntax:

Last version:  auto | baseline | [ <content-distribution>
<content-position>? | <content-position> ] && <overflow-position>?

Current draft: auto | <baseline-position> | [ <content-distribution>? &&
<content-position>? ]! && <overflow-position>?

So, do we want to allow, even if useless, the combination of 'stretch'
and <overflow-position> ?

--
javi

Received on Wednesday, 8 October 2014 16:14:19 UTC