W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2009

Re: [css3-flexbox]

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 19:30:18 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0907311730r62cfd2a2vac39275a7bf4c4c2@mail.gmail.com>
To: James Elmore <james.elmore@cox.net>
Cc: CSS <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:55 PM, James Elmore<james.elmore@cox.net> wrote:
> Hi, again.
>
> I have a nit with the naming in the specification. Unless other
> specifications have been improved since I last read them, 'box' and 'block'
> are sometimes used interchangeably. Even if all references change to refer
> only to 'block' for rectangular elements with padding, margins, borders,
> etc., and all references to 'box' only refer to flexible boxes, the names
> are still similar enough to cause confusion.
>
> I'm sure this was discussed, somewhere, but I don't remember seeing it here.

You're right that "box" is used in several specs.  box-shadow is one
that comes to mind immediately, and the CSS3 Box module (which has
nothing do with flexing, obviously).

> Would something like 'space' make sense to replace 'box'? The spec becomes
> 'flexspace' and the properties become 'space-align', 'space-direction',
> 'space-flex', etc., and this removes the conflict

I really don't like the word 'space' here, though.  It implies
something substantially different.  I wouldn't mind "flexbox" being
used as the actual word, though.

~TJ
Received on Saturday, 1 August 2009 00:31:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:20 GMT