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

Re: [css3-flexbox] Too many flex-flow values?

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 08:56:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDD-zC8PyGs3T98-P3TrEeteRbynbjG3uUXNDDPAsQnJDQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Good question. Technically you are right, any style that uses "horizontal" or "vertical" can have an override in style sheets for different writing modes, and it should be extremely rare -- I haven't seen many designs that easily transform with direction change.
>
> However... the only thing this change would simplify is the chapter you are writing. It won't be more intuitive to say "row" or "column" for designs that are not tolerant to 90 degree rotation (vast majority of them), it will be a hassle for designs that are (think about a combo box control), and it makes no measurable difference for implementation complexity.

Do we think the same is true of Grid?  I'd like to stay consistent
with that spec.  Right now, if you lay out your page with Grid, the
entire layout gets mirrored in rtl, and rotated in ttb.  If the vast
majority of layouts don't make sense to be rotated, Grid should either
have a similar control (and we should match syntax), or it should have
a single physical-based orientation (presumably with cell (1,1) being
in the top-right).

Alternately, if we think that the vast majority of designs aren't
tolerant to rotation, then we should probably remove the writing-mode
dependent values entirely, and change the default to 'horizontal'.

(On further thought, the issue I put in the spec about dropping the
mixed values is wrong - they're the values that depend on 'direction',
and you've demonstrated use-cases for them.)

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 8 September 2011 15:57:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:44 GMT