- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 15:22:40 -0800
- To: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com> wrote: >> The css-align spec says, for flex containers, justify-content: stretch >> computes to flex-start: >> # Flex Containers: >> # [...] >> # The justify-content property [...] >> # since flexing in the main axis is controlled >> # by flex, 'stretch' computes to 'flex-start'. >> >> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-align-3/#propdef-justify-content >> >> This is per a thread & CSSWG resolution [1] earlier this year. >> >> This doesn't explain what happens if there's a fallback value, though. >> For example: what should the computed value be for e.g. >> "justify-content: stretch flex-end" >> >> My first guess is that just the "stretch" part should be converted, >> which means this would compute to... >> "justify-content: flex-start flex-end" >> ...but that's not a valid value. "justify-content" would accept >> <content-distribution> followed <content-position>, but here we've now >> got two adjacent <content-position> which it does not accept. >> >> My second guess is that this should just compute to "flex-start", and we >> simply disregard the fallback value (and similarly ignore safe|true if >> they're specified). This seems simplest, which is good. But if this is >> what we want, we need to expand the spec-text about "stretch" computing >> to "flex-start" in flex containers to more clearly call for this >> handling of complex values. > > Yeah, I think your second solution is what we want. The fallback > alignment can just be ignored in that context. Rather, now that we've adopted the change that "stretch" merely *behaves as* "flex-start" in that situation, the problem is gone. For maximum clarity, tho, I have added a clarification stating that the specified fallback alignment, if any, is ignored in this case. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 3 December 2015 23:23:31 UTC