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

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

From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 04:14:38 +0800
Message-ID: <4F8DCF2E.4030606@csail.mit.edu>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
(12/04/17 8:02), Brad Kemper wrote:
> On Apr 16, 2012, at 4:33 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> The Display Value
>> ===============
>>
>> Fantasai and Anton don't like the term "flexbox", as they think it's
>> misleading, since it's really the children that are flexible - the
>> container element is just a container and is not flexible in and of
>> itself normally.  They don't have a good suggestion for an alternate
>> name, though.
>>
>> Ojan recommends shortening the name further to just "flex", to match
>> the prefix that all the spec's properties have.

Last time I tried to recall what the value is, I got lost because
'block' doesn't have the "box" suffix (neither does "inline"). So, yeah,
I think dropping the "box" is a good idea.

> I like 'flex-group' for the item containing the flexors, and 
> avoiding overuse of the word "box". 'flex-group' (or 'flex-parent') is
> more descriptive of what it is. 

I think flexbox will eventually reach a stage that everyone doesn't need
the name to recall what it is and just hopes the value could have been
as short as possible, so I think it's nice that it could be made shorter
than "table". Also, "inline-flex-group" is a bit too long, although
"inline-flex-group" wouldn't be as common...


Cheers,
Kenny
Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2012 20:15:06 GMT

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