- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 13:25:25 -0700
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 1:19 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > 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. That's all that actually happened. Everything else in the spec either already computes, or needs to stay as "behaves as". ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 6 May 2015 20:26:12 UTC