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

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

From: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 14:31:02 -0800
Message-ID: <CANMdWTs9KychW_p=aHN+r+W3Dy8vQhW59u_cKi_VQsYH+fUT8Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

What would nowrap-reverse do differently from nowrap?
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 22:31:53 GMT

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