- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:00:15 +0900
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 06/18/2013 04:57 AM, L. David Baron wrote: > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-text/#text-align defines a value > 'start end' whose definition is: > > # Specifies ‘start’ alignment of the first line and any line > # immediately after a forced line break; and ‘end’ alignment of > # any remaining lines not affected by ‘text-align-last’. > > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-text/#text-align-last in turn, says: > # If ‘auto’ is specified, content on the affected line is aligned > # per ‘text-align’ unless ‘text-align’ is set to ‘justify’. In > # this case, content is justified if ‘text-justify’ is > # ‘distribute’ and start-aligned otherwise. All other values have > # the same meanings as in ‘text-align’. > > So as far as I can tell it's undefined what 'start end' should do > for the last line when 'text-align-last: auto' (the initial value) > is specified. I think it should be specified to be 'end', and this > should be accomplished by removing the text "not affected by > 'text-align-last'". Done. > I also wonder whether it would make more sense to just have two > values in the general syntax for 'text-align' than specify just the > 'start end' case. > > (I'm also a little surprised by the definition of 'start end' as > using the start value after a forced break matching the way > 'text-align-last' deals with forced breaks. I thought the > motivation for having one of them be a separate property and one be > part of the value was related to having different rules there. But > maybe I'm misremembering.) I think it's more likely to be an issue with cascading. See also http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Jun/0263.html ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2013 04:00:47 UTC