W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2004

Re: vertical align and table-* was: Re:Box model: min-margin......

From: Adam Kuehn <akuehn@nc.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 14:33:10 -0400
Message-Id: <p06110406bd85ef54a403@[]>
To: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>, Brian Sexton <discussion-w3c@ididnotoptin.com>
Cc: www style <www-style@w3.org>

Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:

>| ...vertical centering of a block of contents of an unknown height.
>And how CSS::table-* will help you in this case?

Isn't it obvious?

>Probably you think that vertical-align would help in this case? No!
>'vertical-align' defines property of element itself and not a property of a
>(Yes, there is an unnatural and logically strange CSS's exception in
>interpretation of this for table cells.)

I'm trying to follow your argument here, I really am.  Given this 
markup and CSS:

<div class="container">
    <div class="tobecenteredvertically">

.container {display: table-cell; vertical-align: middle;}

Are you saying that although .tobecenteredvertically will in fact be 
vertically centered, it shouldn't be?  And then you are using that to 
justify the inclusion of min-(max-)margin, min(max-)padding (and 
associated right, left, top, and bottom properties), plus now a new 
pair of properties that you would call content-align and 

I'm sorry, but I fail to see the logic in requiring implementation of 
22 new constructs when implementation of the one existing construct 
will get the job done.   This is doubly true since display: table* 
already works with actual table elements, and works with arbitrary 
elements in at least three existing, distributed implementations.  I 
guess I must be too practical or something.  I'm perfectly willing to 
accept that this is how tables work and then use that to my 
advantage, even if it doesn't result in a world of perfect logical 


-Adam Kuehn
Received on Sunday, 3 October 2004 18:33:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:15 UTC