- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 10:56:25 -0700
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Saturday 2011-04-30 10:17 -0700, Brad Kemper wrote: > I recall arguing for putting it on the parent instead of the > children in that conversation too. It is much more intuitive to > set the alignment on the parent than to find all the children and > have them work it out individually what alignment they should each > be. Consider 'text-align', which is orders of magnitude more > intuitive than 'margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;'. With > 'text-align' on a single line, the children are the glyphs and > spans and such inside the line box parent. But we only ask the > parent to align its children once; we don't ask each glyph and > span what it's alignment should be relative to its parent. > > Aligning different child blocks differently is much more confusing > (to people, not necessarily to "the model") and harder for > authoring. I don't think this actually removes anything, anyway. > You can still use 'margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;' or > flexible margin using flex-box. Yeah, I think you're right -- specifying how the children are aligned is better. But there's also the question of whether the property inherits -- for the use case of adding a property that describes the backwards-compatible <center> behavior, the property would affect children and it would inherit -- but I'm not sure if inheritance is wanted here. If this doesn't inherit, browsers will still need some concept that does inherit to implement <center> and <div align=...>. (But if that continues to be the kludge of extra values on text-align, it's not clear to me how that would interact with box-align.) -David -- L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Saturday, 30 April 2011 17:56:56 UTC