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

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

From: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 14:36:13 -0700
Message-ID: <CANMdWTu7NPkRjm0oH7DzT=0TmsZciM6h1D64fvL8xzP2Nrjrbw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
How do we move forward here? I'd prefer we do the renaming ASAP if we're
going to change the names. I also prefer the new names + new spec FWIW.

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
> >  From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com]
> >  Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 11:27 AM
> > 
> >  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.
> >
> > I think I'll be with majority if I say I am not perfectly happy with the
> names but I would be just fine living with current set.
> >
> > Just in case any tweaking happens to naming, my preferences are...
> >
> > 0) The most used properties should be shorter. If all four could be one
> word each (with "flex-" prefix of course) it would be kewl.
> >
> > 1) *flex-align* -- perfect as is.
> >
> > It can be questioned which axis of flexbox "align" should describe.
> > If there is any analogy with 'text-align' or HTML 'align', these are
> applied on axis that is orthogonal to block flow direction, exactly as it
> is used on flexbox.
> >
> > 2) *flex-item-align* -- it makes the most sense to be "flex-???-align"
> (as in most proposed options). "item" looks unusual, but there is
> 'list-item' for a precedent. "child" would be confusing (who's child?).
> "box" doesn't say what it applies to either.
> >
> > Making 'flex-align' apply to flex item and having a longer name for
> flexbox-level align goes against my preference (0)
> >
> > 3) *flex-pack* -- can have a number of alternatives, about equally
> attractive:
> >
> >        -compact
> >        -fill
> >        -justify
> >        -arrange
> >        -adjust
> >        -shift
> >        -cluster
> >
> > None sound much better to me, but I am already used to "-pack"...
> >
> > 4) *flex-line-pack* could actually become one word (maybe one of the
> above synonyms). I don't mind it being long though (it should be rare), and
> I think it would sound better if it was 'flex-wrap-???", showing clearly
> that it only affects content that wraps.
> >
> > 'flex-wrap-pack' would sound reasonable and intuitive.
> > 'flex-wrap-align' would actually sound reasonable too.
> >
> > "-pack" works because same values apply, with the same effect.
> > "-align" could work because it is in the same direction as 'flex-align'.
> >
> > I could live with either.
> >
> > That's about as much as I would be interested in changing. Not much, but
> if an awesome name comes up, I want to hear))
>
> I'm digging the names that fantasai used in her generic alignment
> draft <http://fantasai.inkedblade.net/style/specs/css3-align/#overview>.
>
> content-justify/align => align the contents of a box en masse (maps to
> flex-pack and flex-line-pack respectively)
> box-justify/align => align a box within its parent, in the primary or
> secondary axis. (box-align maps to flex-item-align)
> child-justify/align => set the defaults for box-align/justify
> (child-align maps to flex-align)
>
> All the names are sensical, and the rules for remembering which one
> does what are simple.  They're all two-word as well.
>
> I'm pretty convinced now that these generic properties address our
> needs in Flexbox, and will also work well in Grid.
>
> The only criticism I might offer is that, while the child/content
> distinction makes sense, it's subtle.  I might prefer
> default-justify/align instead, as that's *really* clear what it's
> doing.
>
> ~TJ
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2012 21:37:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:53 GMT