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

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Javier Fernandez <jfernandez@igalia.com> wrote:
> 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.

That is exactly correct.  Look at flexbox, where it's both a value of
'align-self' (making a flex item stretch to fill the line) and
'align-content' (making the lines all stretch to fill the flex
container).  Stretching is a valid way to handle the "what do I do
with all this extra space?" question whether you're looking at a
single item or a collection.

> 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> ?

Yes, I think it's simpler to allow that than to try and call it out
specially in the grammar.

~TJ

Received on Wednesday, 8 October 2014 17:16:18 UTC