- From: <staffan.mahlen@comhem.se>
- Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 19:17:18 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 7 Oct 2003 at 12:52, L. David Baron wrote: > > On Tuesday 2003-10-07 21:30 +0200, staffan.mahlen@comhem.se wrote: > > <img style="vertical-align: top" src="test.png" />Text <img > > style="vertical-align: bottom" src="test.png" /> > > What should be the result and why? > > The correct layout is undefined since (using the terminology in [1]) the > tallest loose subtree in the line is not the one established by the root > inline box. I should have thought this through better. Thanks for explaining. I agree that there should be at least a note or something that gives the hint that there are combinations of 'vertical-align' that are undefined. > > > If we switch the last to middle, how does that work > Again using terminology from [1], the tallest loose subtree is now the > one established by the root inline box, so the layout is defined. > > "top > > Align the top of the box with the top of the line box. > > bottom > > Align the bottom of the box with the bottom of the line box." > > > > Why are they not relative to the parent like the other align > > properties? > Because then they'd be equivalent to 'text-top' and 'text-bottom'? Hmm, only if the restriction on non-replaced inline element height to be calculated based only on the text they have or could have i belive. To my mind that and the way margin/border/paddings are handled seem like a problem. > [1] http://dbaron.org/css/2000/01/dibm I actually read this one a few times a while ago and thought i understood it at the time. It is very helpful. This time around i wonder if i am still only half-getting it... > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/1999Mar/0121.html Again, thanks for the very informative answer. /Staffan
Received on Thursday, 9 October 2003 13:17:15 UTC