W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2010

Re: [css3-flexbox] Flexbox issues

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 12:05:47 -0700
Message-ID: <w2ndd0fbad1004131205x533c9362zc21dc359c4980f5f@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2. `box-align: stretch` does not allow sufficient control over the
> alignment of the box contents after the height is increased.  I guess
> the children just act like normal boxes, and top-align themselves?
> This prevents us from, say, baseline-aligning boxes but still wanting
> a background/border to be the same height on everything.  I suggest
> that either 'stretch' should be a valid value *in addition to* the
> other values, or that we should define vertical-align affecting
> flexbox children similarly to how it affects table cells.

Alternately, box-align seems like it could be nearly completely
replaced by directly introducing a flex unit.  The 'start', 'end', and
'center' values can be replaced by a flex unit on the margin, and
'stretch' can be replaced by a flex unit on the padding.  I know that
flex units have been rejected in the past as needing too much work to
specify precisely, but I'd be willing to put in the work to see them
specified properly at least within the context of flexbox, and further
to see how well we could specify them in other contexts.

The 'baseline' value doesn't seem reproducible with flexes, though.
Is this important?  Is it reasonable to still specify a baseline
alignment in some other way?

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2010 19:06:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:26 GMT