- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 09:27:46 -0700
- To: Ferenc Vajda <fvajda@doxence.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Ferenc Vajda <fvajda@doxence.com> wrote: > 2012.08.01. 18:02 keltezéssel, Tab Atkins Jr. írta: >> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Ferenc Vajda <fvajda@doxence.com> wrote: >>> >>> I would like to make a suggestion to introduce a new box formatting >>> model defining two values for 'display' property: >>> >>> container, container-inline >>> >>> Both would be rendered as if they were block/block-inline types, the >>> only difference would be the behavior of vertical-align. The behavior >>> for this latter is similar to that of table-cell. >>> >>> I know that there are suggestions for a solution, but I would prefer >>> this solution to e.g. the margin-box model, because this behavior is >>> more like a "box-display" (e.g. table-cell), than a box-sizing or such. >>> >>> A display:container could work on body, as well, resulting in a >>> dynamically changeable window-size box. >>> >>> Since table-cell implements this rendering, sharing with the new types >>> could not be a hard issue for browser developers. >> >> We're actually fixing this use-case (easy centering/alignment of block >> content) via a different method, by taking the generic alignment >> methods that Flexbox defines and extending them to Block. Check out >> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-align/ for details on our approach. >> >> So, rather than using "vertical-align", you'll use "align-content". > > Hi, > > Thanks, this looks great. This solution covers much more issues. Great work. > > However, I would still propose a more rapid solution, because Internet > Explorer follows new features very slowly (and this one is even more > complicated). Some browsers will support it in some months, but developers > won't use it. > > Extending current features (without breaking principles) could be a quicker > solution. And years later "CSS Box Alignment Module Level 3" could serve > community with much more possibilities. We'd need to do roughly the same amount of work with either. Whether it's a new property or just a new value on an existing property has no effect - syntax is trivial. The hard part is defining the behavior correctly and in sufficient detail, which is pretty much identical in both proposals. > I think, aligning vertically is an old and urgent issue... It can't be both old and urgent. ^_^ ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2012 16:28:34 UTC