W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2012

Re: [css3-flexbox] Computed value and flex-align/flex-item-align.

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:32:32 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDA=pW29i4C1CuP_g4PT5rAV0Uvf_BzgBsdS=BSWsB7CXA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com]
>>Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 8:48 AM
> exbox] Computed value and flex-align/flex-item-align.
>>I've thought about it a bit, and I don't think there's any good reason for
>>'inherit' to see ''auto''.
>>If your parent's flex-item-align is set to a non-auto value, using
>>'inherit' ensures that you're aligned the same way as they are: if they're
>>start-aligned in their flexbox, you'll be start-aligned; if
>>they're end-aligned, you'll be end-aligned.    This seems potentially
>>useful.  However, if 'auto' inherits as 'auto', this relationship breaks -
>>you'll now align according to your parent's 'flex-align'
>>property, which can be different than their actual alignment.  So, 'auto'
>>should inherit as the alignment it corresponds to.
> Now, this sounds like a sensible reason to do the work. There is actually a place where it makes a difference.
> Note btw that you will get exactly same result by setting "flex-item-align:auto; flex-align:inherit" on the middle flexbox. But inheriting actual alignment makes sense here. I agree to the text you already have in the spec.

Sounds good!

Received on Friday, 27 January 2012 20:33:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:10 UTC