Re: [css3-align] The Great Alignment Bikeshed

fantasai:

>  http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-align/#overview
> 
>      X) inline (main)
>      Y) stacking (cross)
>      A) element itself within its containing block
>      B) element's contents within itself
>      C) element's child items within their container
> 
>   +--------X----------------Y------
> A |     box-justify      box-align
> B | content-justify  content-align
> C | default-justify  default-align
> 
>   +--------X----------------Y------
> A |    self-justify     self-align
> B | content-justify  content-align
> C |    item-justify     item-align
> 
>   +--------X----------------Y------
> A | justify-outside  align-outside
> B | justify-inside   align-inside
> C | justify-items    align-items

I�m not a fan of �child�, because that is easily confused with DOM tree descendants, but it�s currently not used anyway.

The �Inversion� row makes some sense, because �justify-box�/�align-box� sound like English phrases in the imperative mood, whereas �box-justify�/�box-align� sound odder (to me as a non-native speaker) than �box-justification�/�box-alignment�.

�default-*� seems just wrong, not least because of the �default� keyword.

I think �box� and �content� are good terms and without doing further reading (and thinking), I�m not sure why we need to be able to specify the default box alignment for items.

Regarding �outside� and �inside� (or maybe �outer� and �inner�) I think the latter as proposed doesn�t match my mental model, which makes me prefer

    +--------X--------------Y--------
  A | justify-outside  align-outside
  B | justify[-self]   align[-self]
  C | justify-inside   align-inside

By the way, are the triples �before�/�after�/�center� and �start�/�end�/�center� set in stone now? Otherwise I suggest to reconsider using �middle� instead of �center� in the former case.

Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2012 13:58:58 UTC