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

Re: box-align

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <andrew.fedoniouk@live.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 00:25:35 -0700
Message-ID: <BLU159-ds765C8B9EC1F4EC1170E68F89D0@phx.gbl>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: "Alex Mogilevsky" <alexmog@microsoft.com>, "Brad Kemper" <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>

>-----Original Message----- 
>From: Tab Atkins Jr. 
>Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 9:05 PM 
>To: L. David Baron 
>Cc: Andrew Fedoniouk ; Alex Mogilevsky ; Brad Kemper ; www-style list 
>Subject: Re: box-align 
>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.

I would put this as: 
It is the same property that has specifics in various layouts.

(half empty or half full?)

Consider this sample:

The only difference of second block is that it is defined as

  p.it { display:table; }
  p.it > span { display: table-cell; }
All other styles (and so alignment) is the same in both cases.
Received on Saturday, 30 April 2011 07:26:05 UTC

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