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

Re: [css3-flexbox] is 'wrap-reverse' confusing?

From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 17:52:13 +0800
Message-ID: <4FF563CD.9020303@csail.mit.edu>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
(12/07/05 12:55), fantasai wrote:
> On 07/04/2012 08:34 AM, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu wrote:
>> I have several proposal proposals from changing the 'wrap-reverse'
>> keyword, reducing certain combinations or changing the whole syntax, but
>> I'll stop here for now because there's only 30 minutes left for the
>> telecoms and fantasai asked me to throw in all the substantive comments.
> 
> We had lots and lots of conversations about this whole thing awhile back,
> how to represent all possible combinations, and make it understandable.
> The full set we came up with can be seen [1] here:
>  
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/csswg/raw-file/aaab808294de/css3-flexbox/Overview.html#flex-flow
> 
> At this point there was only 'flex-flow'. Later the physical values were
> dropped, and, since this made invalid combinations impossible, the property
> was split into 'flex-direction' and 'flex-wrap', with 'flex-flow' as a
> shorthand.
>
> I doubt we'll change it at this point, but if you think you have something
> substantially better, I suppose you can try to convince the WG. :)

Thanks for the link. That was a good summary of all the values we had,
and it inspires me to throw in yet another proposal :), although I
wouldn't say it's substantially better. Proposed syntax for 'flex-flow':

  [ row | row-reverse ] && [ wrap | wrap to head ]?
|
  [ column | column-reverse ] && [ wrap | wrap to start | wrap to end ]?
|
  [ wrap | wrap to head ]

The default values are as usual, the syntax has the following
characteristics:

  * The keywords are all logical, although I am sure I can say the
syntax is purely logical.
  * 'reverse' always reverses the main-axis (renaming the keyword
'wrap-reverse' would have the same effect, but it's out of my capability
to come up with a synonym of "reverse"). As a result, there is no longer
'row wrap-reverse', which I consider a confusing combination. You have
to do 'wrap to head' now.
  * For a 'column', you can optionally add the extra "wrap to end" if
you feel like you can't remember which direction is the default
cross-end. In other words, instead of the 'wrap(-normal)'/'wrap-reverse'
switch, it is now a 'wrap to start'/'wrap to end' switch. This is, I
think, less biased towards a direction: this is similar to the fact that
the value of 'direction' is 'ltr'/'rtl' instead of 'normal'/'reverse'. A
paragraph of vertical Chinese embedded in a document of 'writing-mode:
horizontal-tb' would wrap its lines to left, so it's a bit harder for me
to remember that the default wrapping of 'column' is 'wrap to end'.

Some drawbacks:

  * For 'column', it might be difficult to remember that 'wrap to start'
is the 'start' side of the parent but not of itself.
  * I haven't thought of how to split this to two properties.
  * Having the special 'to' syntax in a value not within a functional
notation is somewhat unprecedented. That was inspired by the link above.


Cheers,
Kenny
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2012 09:52:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:56 GMT