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

Re: Proposal: content-vertical-alignment

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 13:10:00 -0700
Message-ID: <009201c57f42$07120e00$3201a8c0@TERRA>
To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: "David Woolley" <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>, <www-style@w3.org>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
To: "Andrew Fedoniouk" <news@terrainformatica.com>
Cc: "David Woolley" <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>; <www-style@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: Proposal: content-vertical-alignment


| 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.

Do you understand layout behavior and calculation of

<table width="100%">
<tr><td width="30%">one</td><td>two</td><td width="70%">three</td></td>
</table>

? If yes I am pretty sure you'll understand then:

<table width="100%">
<tr><td style="width:30%%">one</td><td>two</td><td 
style="width:30%%">three</td></td>
</table>

These two layouts are equivalent.

Let me know if you still don't understand the idea in principle.

|
| > 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".

"well yes, but that isn't a problem because in the real proposal it would be 
solved"
Where did you get it?

Sorry, but I never heard here any constructive discussion about %%.
Thus I did not have a chance to answer even something close to
your citation (?).

Personally I've got an impression that it is not accepted
because only some selected people here allowed
to generate ideas.
So I am getting "not formal" formalistic "arguments" from the very
beginning.

As I've metioned before I've published Implementation
of %% algorithm in layout engine of Harmonia Framework in
open source.

http://www.terrainformatica.com/wiki/pmwiki.php?pagename=Harmonia.Harmonia

OT: this layout engine uses only %% ( no standard %s at all ) in layout.
I was trying to prove the idea that standard % units can be substituted
by %% units completely.


|
|
| > | > | > "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.

Acknowledged.

"If that property has the value 'justify', the user agent may stretch the 
inline boxes as well."

Again, this phrase is not formal enough ( :-p )
Does UA allowed to stretch *all* inline boxes ( including inline blocks) ?

BTW one more illustration which might help to understand %% units:

<p style="text-align:justify">one two three</p>

Is the same as

<p >one<span class="flex" />two<span class="flex" />three</p>
where
.flex
{
   display: inline-block;
   width: 50%%;
}


|
|
| > | > 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.

So you agree with:

  "This phrase literally means than UA allowed to change width
  of <span style="display:inline-block; width:100px">"

?

I hope no.

Andrew Fedoniouk.
http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Saturday, 2 July 2005 20:10:12 GMT

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