- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 11:28:43 -0600
- To: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
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. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 13 November 2015 17:29:40 UTC