W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2011

RE: [css3-flexbox] alignment test

From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 04:38:56 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Tony Chang <tony@chromium.org>, "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>, John Jansen <John.Jansen@microsoft.com>, Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>, Rossen Atanassov <Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <D51C9E849DDD0D4EA38C2E539856928412D8244A@TK5EX14MBXC218.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
± From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] 
± Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 3:52 PM
± On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com> wrote:
± > Can I break this question in two:
± >
± > 1) As far as what 2009 spec actually says, is my test and expected 
± > behavior correct? Such as do margin work the same way in horizontal 
± > and vertical box, is "center" a "true center" etc.? Regardless of what 
± > we want to do, I want to be sure I am reading that correctly
± I'm not sure if it's accurate wrt the actual 2009 spec text; I haven't deeply internalized 
± the relevant details.  That's irrelevant, though, because the two existing *implementations* 
± of said spec do not match your testcases.  Thus, there's no need, even theoretically, to 
± match whatever behavior the spec might be interpreted to mandate.

2009 alignment spec is not irrelevant until we have an agreed new spec that is detailed enough to implement. Whatever is coded up in partial implementations is not a spec. 

Also, the new spec used to have the same text, which I copied from 2009 spec because:

	- at Seattle F2F you insisted that auto margins taking priority 
	  over alignment is a good thing, 
	- at the same time we agreed that it is important that alignment 
	  works the same way in flexbox and in grid
	- later we have observed that 2009 spec describes exactly the behavior 
	  we agreed on in Seattle.

You have later removed the alignment formulas from the new spec (with intention of moving detail to layout algorithm). You have never objected to the text you removed, and there was no WG resolutions on alignment that I know of, so up until this thread I was assuming that there is no change and consulting 2009 spec for alignment is as good as anything.

And that is exactly the reason I have built this test. If it doesn't look like what we want it either (a) means that we didn't realize what we wanted or (b) I don't understand the spec I was reading.

With that in mind (and before I start discussing relevance of my implementation), can I get the answer to my first question - is the picture I sent a correct interpretation of the spec I was consulting with?

I will follow up separately to figure out with what we *actually* want to do.

Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2011 04:57:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:08 UTC