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

On Wednesday 2015-05-06 11:46 -0700, fantasai wrote:
> 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'.

That wasn't actually the resolution that was recorded:
  RESOLVED: justify-content stretch computes to stretch but behaves
  like start

I probably should have pointed out that different people thought we
were resolving different things, but the conversation was moving
very quickly.

-David

-- 
𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla                          https://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
             Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
             What I was walling in or walling out,
             And to whom I was like to give offense.
               - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)