- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 05 May 2015 14:37:01 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 04/13/2015 12:55 PM, Javier Fernandez wrote: > On 04/02/2015 04:51 AM, fantasai wrote: >> >> Wrt the initial value change; this is expected to be an invisible >> change to authors. >> >> An implementation that implements both specs would use the Box >> Alignment definitions, which supersede Flexbox's definitions. >> (I'll clarify that in the module interactions section.) > > I understand your point, thanks for clarifying it in the document anyway. > > However, I found out another case that perhaps needs further explanations: > > * Flexbox: > - justify-content > + initial: flex-start > - align-content > + initial: stretch > > * Alignment > - justify-content > + initial: auto -> *Computes* to 'stretch' -> *Behaves* like > 'flex-start' > - align-content > + initial: auto -> *Computes* to 'stretch' (Behaves as specified) > > So, I understand that we want both properties to have the same computed > value (stretch) for the initial value ('auto') resolution, but we > achieve the functionality described in Flexbox using different initial > values with the *behavior* concept. This is a good point. I think the question boils down to, should 'justify-content: stretch' compute to 'start' on flex containers, or should it compute to itself but behave like 'start'? I'm not sure what the right convention is here. Note to WG: the Box Alignment spec introduces 'stretch' on the 'justify-content' property, which operates in the main axis. Flexbox doesn't have this value because it doesn't make sense for flexbox. ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 5 May 2015 21:37:29 UTC