W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2012

Re: [css3-flexbox] Flexbox Terminology

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 20:16:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDsfAkm=cNNPiq3v45rSvU7STUKE-H_nRgO17vxD04qzw@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 10:56 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> There's an editorial thing that bothers me about Flexbox, which is that the
> terminology is a little inconsistent with what we do elsewhere and with the
> concepts themselves:
> The thing that's a container is called a "flexbox", but the boxes that
> actually
> flex are called "flexbox items". Usually we call the container box a
> "container",
> and child boxes are called "boxes", not "items". We don't use "items" to
> refer
> to boxes anywhere else, and I don't see any reason to start a new convention
> here.
> So I'd like to propose that the boxes that flex are called "flexboxes", and
> the
> containing element be called the "flexbox container".

I don't like this change.

For one, for consistency, it would require us to change the 'display'
value to "flexbox-container", which is much longer than it has any
right to be.

For two, Grid is using the "X as container, X Item as child" pattern
as well, and I expect that other new layout modes will do the same,
such as in my proposal for Stack Layout.  In Grid (and Stack) the
pattern clearly makes sense - the container *is* a grid (or a stack).
Letting Flexbox match is convenient, and not harmful.

Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2012 03:17:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:57 UTC