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

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

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:05:19 +0000
To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3C4041FF83E1E04A986B6DC50F0178290994BE15@TK5EX14MBXC295.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

[Alex Mogilevsky:]
> ± From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] ± Sent: Monday, April
> 16, 2012 4:34 PM ± ± 'flex-align' becomes 'content-align'
> ± 'flex-item-align' becomes 'box-align'
> ± 'flex-line-pack' becomes 'content-pack'
> ± 'flex-pack' becomes 'content-justify'
> I am not a fan of moving to generic properties, I can't say I am perfectly
> happy with current naming. 'flex-item-align' and 'flex-line-pack' aren't
> the best names I've seen.
> Do we have better ideas, or can we apply Fanatai's thinking within the
> "flex-" set?
As a prefix I find 'content' to be especially generic and thus void of meaning. 
If this property will only impact a specific display type then it is useful and
relevant for the name to reflect that. I've found premature naming abstraction to
lead to confusion.
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2012 16:06:16 UTC

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