- From: Adam Kuehn <akuehn@nc.rr.com>
- Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 14:33:10 -0400
- To: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>, Brian Sexton <discussion-w3c@ididnotoptin.com>
- Cc: www style <www-style@w3.org>
Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
>| ...vertical centering of a block of contents of an unknown height.
>
>And how CSS::table-* will help you in this case?
Isn't it obvious?
>Probably you think that vertical-align would help in this case? No!
>
>'vertical-align' defines property of element itself and not a property of a
>container.
>(Yes, there is an unnatural and logically strange CSS's exception in
>interpretation of this for table cells.)
I'm trying to follow your argument here, I really am. Given this
markup and CSS:
<div class="container">
<div class="tobecenteredvertically">
Stuff
</div>
</div>
.container {display: table-cell; vertical-align: middle;}
Are you saying that although .tobecenteredvertically will in fact be
vertically centered, it shouldn't be? And then you are using that to
justify the inclusion of min-(max-)margin, min(max-)padding (and
associated right, left, top, and bottom properties), plus now a new
pair of properties that you would call content-align and
content-valign?
I'm sorry, but I fail to see the logic in requiring implementation of
22 new constructs when implementation of the one existing construct
will get the job done. This is doubly true since display: table*
already works with actual table elements, and works with arbitrary
elements in at least three existing, distributed implementations. I
guess I must be too practical or something. I'm perfectly willing to
accept that this is how tables work and then use that to my
advantage, even if it doesn't result in a world of perfect logical
consistency.
--
-Adam Kuehn
Received on Sunday, 3 October 2004 18:33:30 UTC