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

RE: [css3-flexbox] flexbox algorithm and writing modes

From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 01:16:29 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2C86A15F63CD734EB1D846A0BA4E0FC80E79B12F@CH1PRD0310MB381.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
± From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] 
± Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 5:41 PM
± > I am not sure about 'start' as fallback. In old spec, 'box-
± align:baseline' on block-axis flexbox was treated as 'center', which 
± may be just as random but should get a little better result (for 
± example when mixing text and images?).
± >
± > Also 'center' as fallback avoids the issue of 'start' not always 
± being same as 'before'.
± Oh, I didn't realize that the old spec fell back to 'center' when 
± 'baseline' can't work.  Changing that was an oversight on my part, 
± then.  I'll fix that.

It may be just a bit more complicated. Or easier.

We have a definition for baseline of a flexbox that always works, regardless of content or direction. Similarly, anything with "display-ouside:inline-block" has some kind of baseline, it will align with something when dropped in a line of text.

Then the case of "baseline can't work" can't really happen, ever.

Fallback of "treat 'baseline' as 'center'" made sense in old spec that didn't have per-item alignment and wasn't writing-mode friendly either. Now baseline alignment simply always works...

Received on Thursday, 26 April 2012 01:18:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:58 UTC