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

RE: [css3-flexbox] ED updated: algorithms and 'flex' property

From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:05:03 +0000
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2C86A15F63CD734EB1D846A0BA4E0FC80E7998EB@CH1PRD0310MB381.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
 From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net] 
 Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 9:21 AM
 
 On 04/23/2012 02:32 AM, Anton Prowse wrote:
 > On 29/02/2012 03:58, Alex Mogilevsky wrote:
 >>
 >> With flex, preferred size is the starting point of flexing, often 
 >> zero, but that zero is by no means the size the items prefer to get.
 >
 > Perhaps the term "preferred size" is not optimal. What about "initial 
 > size"? I accept, though, that there's potential for confusion with 
 > "initial value of the main/cross size property". Still, 'flex-
 initial-size' makes more sense to me than 'flex-preferred-size' since, 
 as Alex says, 0px unlikely to be the size that the items prefer to get!
 
 Perhaps call it the 'size basis'? Since it the basis of the flexed 
 size.

I like 'flex-size-basis' or 'flex-base-size' more than 'flex-preferred-size'.

Also, it is not a size, it is a length, that confuses pretty much everybody looking at the names for the first time. 'flex-base-length' would be much more appropriate.

It would be even better if a single word could describe the concept of basis for flexing...

How about 'flex-base' ? or 'flex-basis'? 'origin' would make sense but confusing too. 

Maybe 'flex-root' ?
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:06:18 GMT

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