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

RE: [css3-flexbox] [css3-grid-layout] Too Many Alignment Properties

From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 21:56:53 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D51C9E849DDD0D4EA38C2E539856928412E3975C@TK5EX14MBXC214.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Actually 'flex-line-pack' maps (more or less) to generic alignment (it can apply to text). Then 'flex-align' doesn't map. Either way, there are more properties for cross aligment...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 5:36 AM
> To: fantasai
> Cc: www-style@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [css3-flexbox] [css3-grid-layout] Too Many Alignment Properties
> 
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 3:10 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 2:25 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
> wrote:
> >> So far we have 'vertical-align' and 'text-align', which mainly have
> >> to do with text, but the new layout models are starting to introduce
> >> a lot more aligns.
> >> Flexbox has four different alignment properties. IIRC Grid introduces
> >> several more that do roughly the same thing but not quite. And there
> >> are use cases for alignment in general block layout -- there's been
> >> drafts for alignment properties in both dimensions there (that need
> >> homes, but that's a separate issue).
> >>
> >> Rather than having every layout system design and implement its own
> >> set of alignment properties, I'd like us to take a good look and see
> >> if we can boil these down to a single set of properties that we can all share.
> >>
> >> There are basically two concepts of what alignment applies to:
> >>  a) the thing itself
> >>  b) the thing's contents
> >>
> >> And then there are the two axes: main axis vs. cross axis; inline axis vs.
> >> block;
> >> rows vs. columns; etc.
> >>
> >> There's the problem of needing four appropriately generic and
> >> appropriately precise names, but I think we should be able to get
> >> away with four properties in CSS total. Values that don't apply in a
> >> particular layout mode can be defined to fall back to something
> >> sensible. I think that's better than having more and more properties
> >> that do roughly the same thing but take effect or not depending on
> >> the layout mode.
> >
> > I'm willing to try it out, but I'm not confident it'll be an
> > improvement.  Let's work on it, though.
> 
> Actually, I just thought of a substantial problem.  Flexbox has 4 alignment
> properties:
> 
> 1. aligns the contents in the main axis
> 2. aligns the contents in the cross axis 3. aligns the *lines* of content in the
> cross axis 4. on a child, aligns it within the flexbox's cross axis.
> 
> While 1/2/4 map to your proposed alignment properties, 3 doesn't.
> Flexbox has two differents sets of "contents" that can be aligned separately.
> 
> ~TJ

Received on Thursday, 2 February 2012 21:58:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:50 GMT