- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 19:30:18 -0500
- To: James Elmore <james.elmore@cox.net>
- Cc: CSS <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:55 PM, James Elmore<james.elmore@cox.net> wrote: > Hi, again. > > I have a nit with the naming in the specification. Unless other > specifications have been improved since I last read them, 'box' and 'block' > are sometimes used interchangeably. Even if all references change to refer > only to 'block' for rectangular elements with padding, margins, borders, > etc., and all references to 'box' only refer to flexible boxes, the names > are still similar enough to cause confusion. > > I'm sure this was discussed, somewhere, but I don't remember seeing it here. You're right that "box" is used in several specs. box-shadow is one that comes to mind immediately, and the CSS3 Box module (which has nothing do with flexing, obviously). > Would something like 'space' make sense to replace 'box'? The spec becomes > 'flexspace' and the properties become 'space-align', 'space-direction', > 'space-flex', etc., and this removes the conflict I really don't like the word 'space' here, though. It implies something substantially different. I wouldn't mind "flexbox" being used as the actual word, though. ~TJ
Received on Saturday, 1 August 2009 00:31:20 UTC