W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2016

Re: [css-flexbox] abspos & align-self: stretch

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 14:04:39 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCCd1ew8iKqCvSSMZoKq6YrqKW893mSOsYXJRinswUSPA@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: Christian Biesinger <cbiesinger@google.com>, Greg Whitworth <gwhit@microsoft.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 12:40 PM, fantasai
> <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
>> On 03/30/2015 12:33 PM, Christian Biesinger wrote:
>>> Thanks, I'll do the same. I was wondering if I should stretch it
>>> anyway even though it doesn't technically participate in flex layout.
>>> baseline is also the same as flex-start, I assume.
>> Greg is right, it just gets treated as flex-start. Here's the
>> spec text:
>>   # The static position of an absolutely-positioned child
>>   # of a flex container is determined such that the child
>>   # is positioned as if it were the sole flex item in the
>>   # flex container, assuming both the child and the flex
>>   # container were fixed-size boxes of their used size.
>> If the child is a fixed-size box, then stretch degrades to
>> flex-start.
>>> Would be nice if the spec was a bit more explicit about it!
>> Agreed. :) We're updating the note about "static position
>> rectangle" to help clarify the mental model here. (It's
>> currently got no referrants, so something went missing at
>> some point somewhere.) Also adding a note pointing out how
>> 'stretch' falls back to 'flex-start'.
> And staticpos of an abspos is now more thoroughly defined in Align:
> <https://drafts.csswg.org/css-align/#justify-abspos-static>
> Until "static position rectangle" is actually defined in Position for
> the other layout modes, this is *technically* hand-wavey, but you get
> the gist.

Aaaaaand, never mind.  The static position, as defined in Flexbox, (a)
doesn't pay attention to justify-self at all, because that doesn't
work on flex items, and (b) *does* pay attention to justify-content
and align-content.  This behavior is attested in Edge, so I'd prefer
not to change it (and Christian wants to match it).

So that means there really isn't any hope of unifying static
positioning into the simple Alignment model, and it just needs to be
manually defined by every layout mode. :(

Received on Thursday, 21 April 2016 21:05:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:02 UTC