- From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 21:15:56 +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>
± -----Original Message----- ± From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] ± Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 8:31 AM ± ± > (1) can only be a property. How about this: ± > ± > flex-align: start | end | center | baseline | stretch ± > ± > (2) can be a property, or it can be done with margins. ± > (2.a)If it is a property: ± > ± > flex-item-align: start | end | center | baseline | stretch ± > ± > (2.b) If margins "just work", it is done like this (for vertical flexbox): ± > ± > "flex-item-align:start" == "margin-left:0; margin-right:auto;" ± > "flex-item-align:end" == "margin-left:auto; margin-right:0;" ± > "flex-item-align:center" == "margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;" ± > "flex-item-align:baseline" == *not possible* ± > "flex-item-align:stretch" == "margin-left:0; margin-right:0;" ± > *and* parent must have "flex-align:stretch" ± > ± > (2.c) It is also an option to have per-item property *and* have ± > margin:auto work. That is what grid currently does. ± ± Actually, it looks like we can deal with this right now, since we agree. ± You think (1) is really important, and I'm not opposed to it. ± Given (1), I think (2a) is really important, and you're not opposed to it. ± So we can just decide on that approach. ± ± Sound good? ± ± ~TJ Yes, sounds good. I really like name and scope of (1). (2.a) is the cleanest of the rest, we can look for a better name and for how it relates to grid but I can certainly live with the combination even if nothing else changes, and be measurably happier)) Akex
Received on Friday, 6 January 2012 21:16:29 UTC