W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2014

Re: [css-flexbox] concepts of baselines

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:12:20 -0800
Message-ID: <52FC1BF4.4030800@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 02/10/2014 03:44 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Monday 2014-02-10 12:59 -0800, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:28 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
>>> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-flexbox/#flex-baselines has a bunch of
>>> text about how CSS 2.1 doesn't define the baseline of block and
>>> table boxes, etc.  However, it misses a distinction present in the
>>> underlying concepts.
>>>
>>> If CSS 2.1 defined a baseline, it would need to define *two*
>>> concepts of baseline, a last-line baseline concept used for
>>> inline-block and inline-table baseline alignment in
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#propdef-vertical-align
>>> (which also uses the bottom edge for overflow != visible, and which,
>>> for compatibility, uses the first row of a table), and a first-line
>>> baseline concept used for table cell baseline alignment in
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/tables.html#height-layout .
>>
>> Just to make sure I'm reading this right, you're saying that we need
>> to define the last-line baseline for flexbox and the other things in
>> that section?
>
> Probably, at least if we agree that it's inline-table that's the
> exception rather than inline-block being the exception.  (I think we
> discussed this once, and I don't remember what the consensus was,
> although I tend towards thinking inline-block is the better
> behavior.)
>
> Although that spec clearly isn't the right place for the global
> definitions.

No, they'd probably go into css-align. :)
   http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-align/#baseline

~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 13 February 2014 01:12:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:19 UTC