W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2012

Re: [css3-flexbox] Baseline of flexboxes and flexbox items

From: Morten Stenshorne <mstensho@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:54:09 +0200
To: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style@w3.org, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, Tony Chang <tony@chromium.org>
Message-ID: <87fwc2equ6.fsf@aeneas.oslo.osa>
Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> writes:

> http://goo.gl/mjJLD
>
> The current behavior does seem wrong, but I agree that it's uncommon for
> different display types to be mixed in one flexbox.
>
> I don't feel strongly about this, but my intuition is that the table-cell
> behavior makes more sense. I'm thinking of the case of a toolbar (which is the
> only baseline use-case I can think of). If you have a label for an input that
> wraps, you wouldn't want every other item in the toolbar to move downwards.
>
> FWIW, WebKit's table behavior for inline-blocks doesn't do the above, which I
> think violates http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/tables.html#height-layout.

No, that actually looks right. <td style="display:inline-block;"> will
insert an anonymous table-cell parent. A line will be created inside the
cell for the inline-block, and the baseline of the line will be the
baseline of the inline block, which is the last (second) line in the
inline-block.

Gecko, IE and Opera also agree with Webkit here.

Such anonymous parent insertion will not happen for flexbox, on the
other hand, because an inline-block is an acceptable flexbox item on its
own.

-- 
---- Morten Stenshorne, developer, Opera Software ASA ----
---- Office: +47 23693206 ---- Cellular: +47 93440112 ----
------------------ http://www.opera.com/ -----------------
Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2012 07:54:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:52 GMT