- From: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 16:55:31 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Remember that my three flow-* names were explicitly called out as being non-serious, and just presented for the sake of having names for the 2x3 values. ^_^ Re: using `block` for the "middle" value - it's definitely got its benefits. The parsing isn't too bad; just a tiny bit of prose to disambiguate a lone `display: block` (to `display: block block` ^_^). `block-root` is also a good name. We'd just need a third name to mean "ordinary inline element, or a 'loose' block element". > I don't like the flow-abracadabra values because they seem to me contradicting the Priority of Constituencies principle Yes, CSS roughly follows the Priority of Constituencies too. But don't be so quick to judge! This sort of thing is easy to dismiss as just spec authors faffing about with more aesthetically pleasing designs, but aesthetics is also an important part of intuitive APIs. If you have to litter an API with corner-cases, it's more difficult to learn and remember for users, and is generally worse. Splitting things out slightly more than the "simplest" case can sometimes lead to much better APIs overall. (It can also lead to worse APIs, as it sometimes *is* just spec authors faffing about with aesthetics to the detriment of simplicity and usability. One must be ever vigilant!) Often, naming is all it takes to shift something from "theoretically elegant, but overcomplicated" to "elegant and intuitive". I think the `block`/`block-root` naming might be what takes us there, if we can come up with a good name for the last value. Maybe *that* can be `flow`? -- GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1496#issuecomment-307442691 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 9 June 2017 16:55:38 UTC