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

Re: box-align

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 21:05:05 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=-ixmVZ-r6qNrdfjdb4fszmJsFGw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 8:41 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> On Friday 2011-04-29 12:55 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> The re-use of 'vertical-align' to do content alignment in table cells
>> was inarguably a mistake.
> It was?  Having different properties that do similar things in
> different contexts can be confusing -- authors might have trouble
> remembering which one is which.

Right, but vertical-align on inlines and vertical-align on table-cells
are an even worse problem - identical properties that do substantially
different things.

> Also, for the record, the box-align proposal we discussed a few
> years back was about horizontal alignment only.  The proposal in
> this thread seems substantially different, since it puts the
> alignment property on the parent instead of the children, and has
> alignment on both axes.  This adds the capability to align
> vertically, but removes the capability of aligning different child
> blocks differently, and perhaps confuses the model a good bit as
> well.

Right, this is explicitly an attempt to gain the same capabilities
that vertical-align on table-cells presents, because that's really
useful and authors like it, to the point where they get really
confused when they try to use vertical-align on other elements.
Mixing in horizontal alignment shouldn't complicate the model too
much, but it makes the property more complete and useful, and makes it
direction-agnostic, which is something we want to encourage in new
layout primitives.

Received on Saturday, 30 April 2011 04:05:52 UTC

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