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

Re: [css3-flexbox] getting multiline flexbox back into the spec

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <andrew.fedoniouk@live.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 22:51:14 -0700
Message-ID: <BLU165-ds1435AD27153FBECF2709EEF87E0@phx.gbl>
To: "Alex Mogilevsky" <alexmog@microsoft.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: "W3C style mailing list" <www-style@w3.org>
Sorry but all this looks like a competition whose team will make
the subject more complex.

May I remind again that all this flex-box-vagance  can be defined
by just one new property:

  flow: vertical | horizontal | horizontal-wrap | vertical-wrap | stack |
           "template" | etc.

and the flex units.

Direction of blocks is defined as usual by the 'direction' property that
is already there. The direction  defines direction of e.g. float elements,
table cells, inline blocks. So what is wrong with it?

Am I the only one who see that multiple block layout methods are
1) Share common features like flexibility.
2) Mutually exclusive so shall be applied by value of single property.
3) And so to be defined by single CSS Layout Methods Module or the like.

Given that 'flow' property above and the flex units I would
like to see definition of practical problem that cannot be solved
with them and so requires all these:
flex-direction,
flex-lines,
flex-lines-direction,
flex-lines-progression,
flex-orientation,
flex-pack,
flex-whatever ...

-- 
Andrew Fedoniouk

http://terrainformatica.com


-----Original Message----- 
From: Alex Mogilevsky
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 9:40 PM
To: Tab Atkins Jr.
Cc: W3C style mailing list
Subject: RE: [css3-flexbox] getting multiline flexbox back into the spec

± From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com]
± Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 2:01 PM
±
± flex-direction: lr | rl | tb | bt | lr-tb | lr-bt | rl-tb | rl-bt | tb-lr
± | tb-rl | bt-lr | bt-rl | <the inline variants of these>
±
± The single-direction values imply single-line, while the two-direction
± values imply multiline.  Presumably the inline variants would be "ba | ab
± | se | es | ..."?

Let me try listing the options:

Option 1: writing-mode-like codes for all physical and logical directions

flex-direction:
lr | rl | tb | bt |
lr-tb | lr-bt | rl-tb | rl-bt | tb-lr | tb-rl | bt-lr | bt-rl |
se | es | ba | ab |
se-ba | se-ab | es-ba | es-ab | ba-se | ba-es | ab-se | ab-es
(initial:se)

Option 2: verbose version

flex-direction:
horizontal | horizontal-reverse | vertical | vertical-reverse |
horizontal-vertical | horizontal-vertical-reverse |
horizontal-reverse-vertical | horizontal-reverse-vertical-reverse |
vertical-horizontal | vertical-horizontal-reverse |
vertical-reverse-horizontal | vertical-reverse-horizontal-reverse |
inline | inline-reverse | block | block-reverse |
inline-block | inline-block-reverse |
inline-reverse-block | inline-reverse-block-reverse |
block-inline | block-inline-reverse |
block-reverse-inline | block-reverse-inline-reverse
(initial:inline)

Option 3: multiline settings separate

flex-direction: lr | rl | tb | bt | inline | inline-reverse | block | 
block-reverse
(initial:inline)

flex-lines: single | multiple
(initial:single)

flex-lines-direction: normal | reverse
(initial:normal)

Option 4: multiline settings separate, combined

flex-direction: lr | rl | tb | bt | inline | inline-reverse | block | 
block-reverse
(initial:inline)

flex-lines: single | multiple | multiple-reverse
(initial:single)

Option 5: separate direction and orientation (as in 2007 spec)

flex-orientation: horizontal | vertical | inline | block
(initial:inline)

flex-direction: normal | reverse
(initial:inline)

flex-lines: single | multiple
(initial:single)

flex-lines-progression: normal | reverse
(initial:normal)

To be honest I still prefer the 2007-style separate properties (option 5). 
It has the most useful default (authors will very rarely use anything other 
than 'flex-orientation', and when they do it is clear what's changing).

Alex
Received on Saturday, 4 June 2011 05:51:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:41 GMT