- From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2014 16:16:14 -0800
- To: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org> wrote: > On 01/02/2014 21:46, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote: >> >> (Sorry about revitalizing the horse) >> >> For display:block elements, >> what conceptually stops us from treating `vertical-align` >> exactly in the same way as in display:table-cell ? > > > Backward compatibility with existing content that may rely on vertical-align > doing nothing in this case. > I'd like to see any content that relies on the fact that vertical-align does nothing. Something tells me that it will be hard to find such a content. In 99.99% of cases it will be just a bug I think. In the same way we can say: we cannot add any new values to, say, 'display' as someone already relied on the fact that non-recognizable values are not parsed. I mean that any new feature we add may potentially break something. > >> I believe this functionality is so basic and asked for >> so frequently that we should do something about it. > > > Use Flexbox. > > http://philipwalton.github.io/solved-by-flexbox/demos/vertical-centering/ > display:flexbox has pretty much the same set of problems as display:table-cell Like: what about vertical-align in display:list-item? Vertical and horizontal alignment is not specific to flexbox only. E.g. it can be used with display:grid, or some other layout manager that we don't know yet. But even flexbox has no concept of alignment in overflow cases that I was talking about. Consider this http://terrainformatica.com/w3/transition-with-vertical-align.gif Markup used there: <div style="width:50%;margin:4px auto;" > <header>Click me!</header> <div> Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, ... </div> </div> Something tells me that without use of heavy artillery like position:absolute that case above is not solvable. -- Andrew Fedoniouk. http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Sunday, 2 February 2014 00:16:42 UTC