W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2005

Re: Proposal: content-vertical-alignment

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 19:01:17 +0000 (UTC)
To: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Cc: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>, www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0507021852120.11931@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
> 
> must be interpreted by user agents as undefined -
> must be interpreted by user agents as having no value defined.
> 
> Whatever you like.

There is no concept in CSS of a property having no value defined. This is 
what I don't understand.


> | Definition by example defines one example, it does not define the
> | processing model, which is what is needed for a formal proposal.
> 
> As far as I understand we a here for transforming ideas into formal 
> proposals, right?

David pointed out that your idea had been rejected by the CSSWG. [1] I 
explained that the reason this was the case was that we didn't understand 
your ideas and that we would need a formal proposal in order to proceed. 
[2] You put forward a proposal saying it was a formal proposal. [3] I am 
just explaining why it was not a formal proposal, or at least, not in a 
form that would be useful to the CSS working group in terms of us studying 
your idea to see if we should add it to CSS.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2005Jun/0063.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2005Jun/0074.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2005Jul/0090.html


> If you don't like the idea in principle - tell me, I'll understand *your*
> opinion and will honour it.

I don't *understand* your idea. I can't have an opinion without a proposal 
that I actually understand.


> But arguments "this or that are not formal enough" are not constructive 
> in most cases. Critisizing - propose, the only way to reach some results 
> in discussion, AFAIK.

I can criticize formal proposals. I can't criticize ideas where every 
comment gets the response "well yes, but that isn't a problem because in 
the real proposal it would be solved".


> | > | > "In the case of 'justify', the UA may stretch the
> | > | > inline boxes in addition to adjusting their positions"
> | > | >
> | > | > What are "inline boxes" here? And so on.
> | > |
> | > | Uh, "inline boxes" is a defined CSS term, see, e.g., 9.2.2.
> | >
> | > What kind of inline boxes UA may stretch?
> |
> | Any inline boxes that have white-space: justify. See section 9.4.2.
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#normal-flow
> 
> Did not find here neither white-space: justify mentioning neither 
> justify among list of valid values of white-space.

Sorry, I meant text-align: justify, my bad.


> | > This phrase literally means than UA allowed to change width
> | > of <span style="width:100px">
> |
> | 'width' doesn't apply to inline elements.
> 
> But it does for inline-blocks. Right?

Yes.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 2 July 2005 19:01:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:39 GMT