W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2011

Re: [css3-flexbox] Best way to denote flexible lengths

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 11:27:45 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTinuEb7qiAJyMra8RHbnZt223Xji6A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 2:21 AM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2011 9:06 AM
>> How do you feel about removing flexible padding, and instead speccing a
>> 'box-align' property, as was discussed a few years ago?
> Considering that 'box-align' is what I have implemented I would support it. However you previously insisted that older 'box-align' doesn't handle use case you cared about - stretching the boxes while aligning baseline of content. Are you now OK with going back completely to 'box-align:before|after|middle|baseline', with baseline defined as in 2007 spec, or will you want to revisit the align values?

Sorry, I'm referring to something completely different.  A few years
ago (I think in 2008), it was proposed that we have a 'box-align'
property that allows for centering behavior the same as what
'vertical-align' does for table cells - that is, it makes the element
a BFC, and then aligns the contents of the box.  (Obviously, this only
has an effect if the box has an explicit height greater than its

Fantasai has suggested to me that we can utilize this to achieve the
"stretched box, align the contents" use-case, which I'm currently
solving with flexible padding.  It would also be usable outside of
flexbox, in an obviously useful fashion.

If we adopted this, the only change would be that I'd drop the ability
of padding to be flexible.  Width, height, and margins would still be
flexible.  I'd then define the box-align value, which is usable

>> > If flex() can take space separated flexibility and size, and flexibility
>> is one or two numbers, then the weird sequence is not allowed.
>> Okay, I'll make the edit on Monday.
> This sounded good last Saturday, did you change your mind (in later mail)?

Yeah, it was easier to spec that the length was allowed to go between
the two flexibility values.  Like I said, if you feel strongly that
this shouldn't be allowed, I'm definitely willing to change the spec

Received on Monday, 25 April 2011 18:28:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:45 UTC