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

Re: [css3-flexbox] flex-flow: wrap

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 14:06:17 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDASVFKfJXRfzX+9XaiSAvonG6GYEuLT13C3iMRx47mQRA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Cc: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> I agree. There is no benefit in having wrapping and direction in one
>> property.
>>
>> It may still be useful to have flex-flow as a shortcut. Should there be
>>
>>  flex-direction: row | column | row-reverse | column-reverse
>>  flex-wrap: nowrap | wrap | wrap-reverse
>>  flex-flow: <flex-direction> || <flex-wrap>
>>
>> ?
>
> This sounds good to me.  I'll make the edits shortly.

I've made the edits.  Currently I'm maintaining the original grammar
of flex-flow, with "<flex-direction> <flex-wrap>?".  Should I loosen
it as Alex suggests above?

Also, now it kinda looks odd that no-wrap is the only keyword that
doesn't have a -reverse variant.  Should we add one for consistency?
I don't see much *use* for it, but if the lack would be confusing, we
can fix it simply.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 22:07:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:47 GMT