W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2010

RE: Flexbox Draft, with pictures!

From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 01:01:02 +0000
To: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>, David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
CC: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5258A1A783764C478A36E2BC4A9C497E0AA3B7@tk5ex14mbxc105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
My vote currently is for


yes, 'flexbox-flex' looks odd but the whole naming system is very clear.

I also prefer 'orientation' to 'orient'.

From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ojan Vafai
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 3:58 PM
To: David Hyatt
Cc: Tab Atkins Jr.; www-style list
Subject: Re: Flexbox Draft, with pictures!

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 3:46 PM, David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com<mailto:hyatt@apple.com>> wrote:
(1) I don't think "flex" by itself is a good term for display-inside.  I also agree that "box" is arguably too generic.  You might consider just combining the words flex and box together.

display: flex-box
display: inline-flex-box

The same would apply to other properties, e.g., flexbox-begin not flex-begin.

The original version of Tab's spec used "flexbox". What's you're issue with just "flex"? flexbox seems redundant to me.
Received on Wednesday, 26 May 2010 01:01:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:35 UTC