- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:12:20 -0800
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 02/10/2014 03:44 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > On Monday 2014-02-10 12:59 -0800, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:28 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: >>> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-flexbox/#flex-baselines has a bunch of >>> text about how CSS 2.1 doesn't define the baseline of block and >>> table boxes, etc. However, it misses a distinction present in the >>> underlying concepts. >>> >>> If CSS 2.1 defined a baseline, it would need to define *two* >>> concepts of baseline, a last-line baseline concept used for >>> inline-block and inline-table baseline alignment in >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#propdef-vertical-align >>> (which also uses the bottom edge for overflow != visible, and which, >>> for compatibility, uses the first row of a table), and a first-line >>> baseline concept used for table cell baseline alignment in >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/tables.html#height-layout . >> >> Just to make sure I'm reading this right, you're saying that we need >> to define the last-line baseline for flexbox and the other things in >> that section? > > Probably, at least if we agree that it's inline-table that's the > exception rather than inline-block being the exception. (I think we > discussed this once, and I don't remember what the consensus was, > although I tend towards thinking inline-block is the better > behavior.) > > Although that spec clearly isn't the right place for the global > definitions. No, they'd probably go into css-align. :) http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-align/#baseline ~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 13 February 2014 01:12:49 UTC