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: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:26:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBFFq+rPk6Bb+f7GNPQsw3YUsGKB4ApZpjsQwMsSadp4g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com> wrote:
> ± 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?

Let's see...

flex-align => flex-group-align
flex-item-align => flex-align
flex-pack => flex-group-justify
flex-line-pack => flex-group-pack

Or, try it the other way around:

flex-align => flex-align
flex-item-align => flex-box-align
flex-pack => flex-justify
flex-line-pack => flex-pack

I'm not sure if either of these are actually an improvement over what
we currently have.  :/  I'm inclined to just keep the current names
until we get the proper generic names.

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 19 April 2012 18:27:32 GMT

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