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 08:03:25 +0000
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, 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: <5258A1A783764C478A36E2BC4A9C497E0AB0A9@tk5ex14mbxc105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Actually "flex" is not a feature of flex-box. It is something that has effect on blocks when they are inside a flex-box. Although I don't support extending "flex unit" to CSS in general, it seems reasonable that "flex" has a meaning elsewhere, e.g. within a flexible grid. That is probably how the naming got transferred from XUL to begin with.

A good name would express the way the container positions its children along one dimention. E.g. "stack". I know that has a different meaning in XUL but this is not XUL...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Anne van Kesteren
> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 12:52 AM
> To: Ojan Vafai; David Hyatt
> Cc: Tab Atkins Jr.; www-style list
> Subject: Re: Flexbox Draft, with pictures!
> 
> On Wed, 26 May 2010 03:00:19 +0200, David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
> wrote:
> > I'm not saying "box" is great and would welcome other suggestions, but
> > flexing is a property of the children, not of the container.  The
> > container itself doesn't flex.  Calling something a "flex" because the
> > children inside it get flexed seems weird to me.
> 
> I think most authors (myself included) don't really care about the semantics
> and just want a simple memorable name. "flex" seems simpler than
> "flexbox" to me. The suffix "box" also seems weird as everything is a box
> already.
> 
> 
> --
> Anne van Kesteren
> http://annevankesteren.nl/


Received on Wednesday, 26 May 2010 08:05:51 GMT

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