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

Re: [css3-flexbox] One final round of bikeshedding on property/value names?

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 12:49:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAZXjzEEkHCAV+hHGN5bHFtPUEGK1j563Edjjr4WTgUHw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Daniel Glazman
<daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote:
> Le 17/04/12 01:33, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit :
>
>> I have a few pending issues on Flexbox about the naming of various
>> properties and property values.  I'll lay them out in short form here,
>> so we can discuss them all together, like ripping off a band-aid.
>> (Note that after this, regardless of the result, I'll be rejecting any
>> name-change suggestions with prejudice.)
>>
>> The Alignment Properties
>> =====================
>> In<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Feb/0743.html>,
>> fantasai proposes renaming all of the alignment properties and some of
>> their values:
>>
>> 'flex-align' becomes 'content-align'
>> 'flex-item-align' becomes 'box-align'
>> 'flex-line-pack' becomes 'content-pack'
>> 'flex-pack' becomes 'content-justify'
>
>
> Well, I also see a lot of value in keeping the flex-* prefix. It
> adds readability, it helps the learning curve, it helps maintainance
> because all flex-box properties are easy to search for with one
> pattern only...

Right.  fantasai's argument is that having to remember 3+ different
names for the same functionality, depending on what layout mode you're
using, is also somewhat confusing.

Which of these two sources of potential confusion is greater is an
open question.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2012 19:50:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:52 GMT