W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2015

Re: [css-align][css-flexbox] Should 'justify-content: stretch' compute to or behave like 'start'?

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 11:46:36 -0700
Message-ID: <554A618C.2020101@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 05/05/2015 11:47 PM, Daniel Holbert wrote:
> On 05/05/2015 05:31 PM, fantasai wrote:
>>> All things being equal, I'd suggest erring on the side of simplicity
>>> (avoiding inter-property dependencies) -- so, I'd lean towards your
>>> second option, i.e. having stretch compute to itself, and simply
>>> interpret the value differently for flex containers.
>>
>> We currently have the 'auto' values in css-align compute differently
>> depending on the layout mode... that would be an argument for changing
>> that behavior, too?
>
> Sort of -- though, as you noted later, there's a semi-compelling reason
> that 'auto' needs to be magical & compute to different things: to
> provide different sane defaults, w/ backwards-compatibility. Whereas,
> there's no strong reason that 'stretch' needs this computed-value-time
> magic.

We resolved to have the alignment properties' auto (and 'stretch')
compute to their resulting behavior based on the layout mode. This
puts a dependency from the alignment properties to 'position' on
the element itself and 'display' on its parent'.

We can revisit later if there's problems.

> (I suppose if we take this complexity for 'auto', then it's not
> significantly worse to take it for 'stretch' as well, though.)

Exactly. :)

~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 6 May 2015 18:47:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:52:11 UTC