- From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 17:13:29 +0000
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Tab Atkins Jr. > Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 10:06 AM > > Actually eliminating box-align or box-pack – I don’t think that’s necessary. > > These are intuitive and don’t complicate implementation, even if the > > same can be done in a different way. > > But how does it work with flex units? pack/align are top-down layout > strategies, while flex units are bottom-up. The two are in conflict by default, > unless you specify pack/align in terms of setting default values for some > flexible lengths. > > That's not going to be easy, though, since the default values for margin and > padding are 0, not 'auto' - that seems inconsistent with magic behavior based > on pack/align. Actually I don't see anything difficult there. - "pack" has any effect only after any flex distribution is exhausted and there is still empty space. - "align" has to deal with non-zero margins and padding already; if those are calculated using flex or anything else it doesn't change any of align code. Or is there something I don't see?
Received on Tuesday, 1 June 2010 17:14:06 UTC