- From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 01:16:29 +0000
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
± From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] ± Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 5:41 PM ± ± > I am not sure about 'start' as fallback. In old spec, 'box- ± align:baseline' on block-axis flexbox was treated as 'center', which ± may be just as random but should get a little better result (for ± example when mixing text and images?). ± > ± > Also 'center' as fallback avoids the issue of 'start' not always ± being same as 'before'. ± ± Oh, I didn't realize that the old spec fell back to 'center' when ± 'baseline' can't work. Changing that was an oversight on my part, ± then. I'll fix that. It may be just a bit more complicated. Or easier. We have a definition for baseline of a flexbox that always works, regardless of content or direction. Similarly, anything with "display-ouside:inline-block" has some kind of baseline, it will align with something when dropped in a line of text. Then the case of "baseline can't work" can't really happen, ever. Fallback of "treat 'baseline' as 'center'" made sense in old spec that didn't have per-item alignment and wasn't writing-mode friendly either. Now baseline alignment simply always works...
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2012 01:18:13 UTC