- From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 21:56:53 +0000
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Actually 'flex-line-pack' maps (more or less) to generic alignment (it can apply to text). Then 'flex-align' doesn't map. Either way, there are more properties for cross aligment... > -----Original Message----- > From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 5:36 AM > To: fantasai > Cc: www-style@w3.org > Subject: Re: [css3-flexbox] [css3-grid-layout] Too Many Alignment Properties > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 3:10 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 2:25 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> > wrote: > >> So far we have 'vertical-align' and 'text-align', which mainly have > >> to do with text, but the new layout models are starting to introduce > >> a lot more aligns. > >> Flexbox has four different alignment properties. IIRC Grid introduces > >> several more that do roughly the same thing but not quite. And there > >> are use cases for alignment in general block layout -- there's been > >> drafts for alignment properties in both dimensions there (that need > >> homes, but that's a separate issue). > >> > >> Rather than having every layout system design and implement its own > >> set of alignment properties, I'd like us to take a good look and see > >> if we can boil these down to a single set of properties that we can all share. > >> > >> There are basically two concepts of what alignment applies to: > >> a) the thing itself > >> b) the thing's contents > >> > >> And then there are the two axes: main axis vs. cross axis; inline axis vs. > >> block; > >> rows vs. columns; etc. > >> > >> There's the problem of needing four appropriately generic and > >> appropriately precise names, but I think we should be able to get > >> away with four properties in CSS total. Values that don't apply in a > >> particular layout mode can be defined to fall back to something > >> sensible. I think that's better than having more and more properties > >> that do roughly the same thing but take effect or not depending on > >> the layout mode. > > > > I'm willing to try it out, but I'm not confident it'll be an > > improvement. Let's work on it, though. > > Actually, I just thought of a substantial problem. Flexbox has 4 alignment > properties: > > 1. aligns the contents in the main axis > 2. aligns the contents in the cross axis 3. aligns the *lines* of content in the > cross axis 4. on a child, aligns it within the flexbox's cross axis. > > While 1/2/4 map to your proposed alignment properties, 3 doesn't. > Flexbox has two differents sets of "contents" that can be aligned separately. > > ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 2 February 2012 21:58:26 UTC