W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2014

Re: [css-align] 2 issues / comments on the specification

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 19:31:26 -0800
Message-ID: <5490F90E.4080507@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 01/29/2014 05:41 PM, Julien Chaffraix wrote:
> Hi,
>
> * 'flex-end' resolves to 'start' on non-flex items
>
> This is very confusing and I think it would make more sense to have it
> resolve to 'end' to be consistent with the author's cue.

Okay, we've changed this as you suggest.

> * Currently the specification is silent on what happens when
> 'self-start' and 'self-end' are set on an orthogonal writing mode.
>
> I have thought of 2 ways to think about this (there is probably others):
> A) As the axes from the containing block / child are orthogonal, it is
> invalid and we would default to 'start' / 'end' (based on the original
> property).
> B) We use the child's coordinate system to resolve start / end into a
> physical direction and use it for the resolution.
>
>>From my perspective, A) makes more sense as B) would involve looking
> at the opposite axis (e.g. 'justify-self' would end up working on the
> child's block-axis).

This makes no sense. There's no reason why you cannot compute the sides
of 'self-start' and 'self-end' on an orthogonal flow. The relevant axis
is determined by the property, and start vs. end is determined by the
box's specified block or inline flow direction, whichever is in that axis.

~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 17 December 2014 03:32:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:49 UTC