- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 14:27:39 -0700
- To: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
- Cc: CSS WG <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:57 PM, François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote: >> Yes, 'stretch' doesn't do anything if the item is >> larger than the area, which is why IE renders >> the way it does. > > Thanks, this is much clearer than the spec. Hmm, it should be exactly what the spec says. Can I fix the spec to be clearer somehow? >> Yes, our handling of clamping is not great right now. >> Obviously things need to get clamped in the middle >> there, so that if a max-* prevents it from reaching >> its full stretched size, it should still stretch as much >> as possible, and then start-align. >> >> I'll add an issue on it for now. > > That slightly bothers me, though. I can clearly see cases where you would want to center the element if it can't grow to fit, and not start-align it. This is basically just copied from Flexbox; no one's asked for fallback values yet. > I guess you could still use auto margins to achieve this, though (however, would it work vertically?). Margin handling is defined per-layout-mode. In Flexbox and Grid, though, auto margins win over 'stretch', so your item wont' be stretched at all if you use auto margins for alignment. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2014 21:28:25 UTC