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

Re: box-align

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 23:04:19 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTimMR-g=tYq=bUrUaPRfHKczir=qdg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Cc: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Andrew Fedoniouk
<andrew.fedoniouk@live.com> wrote:
>
>  "if it's current definition were not so complicated already"
>
> and what exactly is so complex there?
>
>  "If there is a new kind of alignment, it should be a new property."
>
> Umm... Alignment is alignment. I am not sure I understand you here...

'vertical-align' is not usable for block-level alignment.  It already
has a well-defined meaning - it aligns inline-level elements within
the linebox.

Aligning block-level children of an element is something quite
different, and thus should be a separate property.


> Are you saying that you expect to see something like:
>
> inline-box {
>  vertical-align: baseline;
>  box-align:top right;
> }
>
> ?  What would be the final alignment then?

Yes, those two work together just fine.  The element in question is
baseline-aligned within its linebox, and then its children are aligned
to the top and right of it.


> And yet:  I suspect that TTB writing systems require
> 'horizontal-align' to have most of 'vertical-align' values
> for symmetry.

Indeed, the two directions should work the same.

~TJ
Received on Friday, 29 April 2011 06:05:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:39 GMT