- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:34:11 -0700
- To: Morten Stenshorne <mstensho@opera.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>, Tony Chang <tony@chromium.org>
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Morten Stenshorne <mstensho@opera.com> wrote: > "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> writes: > >> The baseline of a flexbox item is just whatever their display type >> says it should be (there's no "flexbox item" display type). > > That would mean that a flexbox item with e.g. display:block and a > flexbox item with display:inline-block would get their baselines > calculated differently (first line vs. last line). Do we really want > that? It's the simplest answer. Those display values had their baselines defined that way for a reason. There's no real reason to mix, say, display:block and display:inline-block - they're treated identically by Flexbox otherwise, so you might as well declare all the children as one or the other if you want a particular baseline out of all of them. On the other hand, table cells do their alignment with a special definition, which you modified in your original post. Hm. Ojan, Tony, Alex, Daniel, do you have any particular opinion on this? I can specify it either way - we can either keep the current "flexbox items have their normal baselines, based on their display value" or determine the baseline the same way that table-cells do. Also, what are all of you doing currently for the baseline of the flexbox itself (for both 'row' and 'column' flexboxes, if it makes a difference, and for the special case when the baseline of all the children is perpendicular to the direction of the flexbox)? ~TJ
Received on Monday, 16 April 2012 22:35:01 UTC