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.

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:46 UTC