W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2011

Re: [css3-flexbox] flex-flow bikeshed

From: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:17:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CANMdWTs2ss=77PGPh5NxnxVdKgCfse6vQoSvDFxPUZPATFWe+Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote:
> > flex-flow seems really complicated. Unfortunately, I don't have anything
> new
> > arguments against having so many possible values.
>
> I know what you mean. :/  Unfortunately, there are explicit use-cases
> for nearly all of the values (and the few that weren't given explicit
> use-cases are justified by consistency).
>

I reread all the threads about this and I'll admit to not being able to keep
track of all the use-cases + the need for all these values. The thing I
wonder is how much simplification we could get if we cut one or two of the
more onerous use-cases. As it is, I think the current complexity hurts the
common use-cases because web developers, for the most part, just won't get
all this and will pick whichever option seems to work.

I don't have a good enough grasp of how these values map to what use-cases
to make a meaningful suggestion.


> If you have an idea for a better syntax, suggest away!


I don't have an issue with the syntax. It's just a lot of options that are
hard to wrap your head around as a web developer. I don't think this
actually adds much implementation complexity.


> Note that some
> of the options that seem overly-long (like "horizontal-ltr", which
> could just be "ltr") were done that way on purpose, to discourage
> their use when they're not explicitly needed.  We believe that 'row'
> and 'column' will usually be correct and will adjust in the way that
> authors actually want, but if 'ltr' was available, they'd often reach
> for that just because it's so short.
>

With my web dev hat on, I would almost certainly use 'horizontal' or
'vertical' because those seem to have the clearest relationship to what I
want to see happen (i.e. things flowing horizontally or vertically).


> > If we're going to have all these options, we should at least be
> consistent
> > with writing-mode. Specifically, horizontal-ltr | horizontal-rtl |
> > vertical-ttb | vertical-btt, should be horizontal-lr | horizontal-rl |
> > vertical-tb | vertical-bt.
>
> Good catch.  I'll make the change.
>
> ~TJ
>
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2011 18:30:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:43 GMT