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 14:59:03 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAbD5X3AEqGi8rLT0ix56WP+J7NeFCzFH77A_5ErAJHCQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
Cc: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> 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?
>>
>> Flip the cross-axis.
>
> Is there a use-case for this? If not, it's just confusing. Symmetry is not
> worth adding confusing options that noone will understand.

I don't think it would be particularly confusing, but it would be less
clear than wrap-reverse.  I was just concerned about whether the
*lack* of a -reverse option would be more confusing than having it.
If you're comfortable with not having it, so am I.


> To be clear,
> here's how things would layout on a fixed-width/height flexbox:
> wrap:
> |AB|
> |C |
> |  |
> nowrap:
> |AB|C
> |  |
> |  |
> wrap-reverse:
> |  |
> |C |
> |AB|
> nowrap-reverse:
> |  |
> |  |
> |AB|C

Yes, this is correct.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 22:59:52 GMT

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