- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:32:32 -0800
- 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! ~TJ
Received on Friday, 27 January 2012 20:33:19 UTC