Fw: RE: [css-flexbox] Summary of planned changes to Flexbox Module

Keep forgetting to cc the list :/

--
Adam Del Vecchio (Mobile)
President - Techo TechnologyFrom: Adam Del Vecchio <adam.delvecchio@go-techo.com>
Date: 29 Apr 2010 2:45 p.m.
Subject: RE: [css-flexbox] Summary of planned changes to Flexbox Module
To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>

I agree completely. I think flexbox would be better then flex-box, for this reason:
-moz-boder-radius means mozilla border radius.
-flex-box would be read as flex box (with a space) instead of flexbox. Flexbox is the proper term, as I understand.



--
Adam Del Vecchio (Mobile)
President - Techo TechnologyOn 29 Apr 2010 2:38 p.m., Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com> wrote: 

That is a good point, I am surprised it was not brought up before. The word “box” is used in so many ways that calling a new kind of layout just “box” seems misleading. It really should be “flexbox” or “flex-box”. Then of course all related values will have to be renamed to something like ‘flex-box-align’ etc. but I think we can figure that out. From: Adam Del Vecchio [mailto:adam.delvecchio@go-techo.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 10:08 AM
To: Alex Mogilevsky; www-style@w3.org
Subject: RE: [css-flexbox] Summary of planned changes to Flexbox Module I disagree. I think possibly (at least some of) the box-* positions could be somehow combined into a single box: property, however I think incorporating them into display would make the display property do too much. 

However, I think display: flexbox; would have been better then display: box.

I understand that I may be completly wrong with the above, I'm only 2 days into the list. Anyway, that's just my $0.02


--
Adam Del Vecchio (Mobile)
President - Techo TechnologyOn 29 Apr 2010 9:10 a.m., Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com> wrote: 

> -----Original Message----- 
> From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On 
> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 3:44 PM 
> 
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 3:18 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> 
> wrote: 
> 
> > On Monday 2010-04-19 14:35 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: 
> >> Flex-inline and flex-block are based on the block progression 
> >> direction and the writing-mode, and map to one of the first four 
> >> values. 
> > 
> > It seems clearer to say they're based on the inline progression 
> > direction and the block progression direction. 
> 
> Sure. 

I actually don’t like at all the idea of using more display values instead of 'box-direction' and 'box-orient'. I really don't see why this is better. It seems generally harder to understand and it makes the most common cases look less elegant. And it does rely on assumption that 'display-inside' exists, and if that doesn’t happen this becomes really complicated.