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

Re: Flexbox Draft, with pictures!

From: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 20:02:34 -0500
Cc: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-id: <90A2F576-244F-497A-8CEB-6565A4EE9376@apple.com>
To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
That would be my vote as well... flexbox-flex would go away if we adopt flex units (which I think we should strongly consider doing).

dave

On May 25, 2010, at 8:01 PM, Alex Mogilevsky wrote:

> My vote currently is for
>  
>                 display:flexbox
>                 display:inline-flexbox
>                 flexbox-align
>                 flexbox-direction
>                 flexbox-flex
>                 etc.
>  
> 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> 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 01:03:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:27 GMT