- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 23:04:19 -0700
- To: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Cc: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Andrew Fedoniouk
<andrew.fedoniouk@live.com> wrote:
>
> "if it's current definition were not so complicated already"
>
> and what exactly is so complex there?
>
> "If there is a new kind of alignment, it should be a new property."
>
> Umm... Alignment is alignment. I am not sure I understand you here...
'vertical-align' is not usable for block-level alignment. It already
has a well-defined meaning - it aligns inline-level elements within
the linebox.
Aligning block-level children of an element is something quite
different, and thus should be a separate property.
> Are you saying that you expect to see something like:
>
> inline-box {
> vertical-align: baseline;
> box-align:top right;
> }
>
> ? What would be the final alignment then?
Yes, those two work together just fine. The element in question is
baseline-aligned within its linebox, and then its children are aligned
to the top and right of it.
> And yet: I suspect that TTB writing systems require
> 'horizontal-align' to have most of 'vertical-align' values
> for symmetry.
Indeed, the two directions should work the same.
~TJ
Received on Friday, 29 April 2011 06:05:06 UTC