Re: Flexbox Draft, with pictures!

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 4:05 PM, David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com> wrote:

> On May 25, 2010, at 5:58 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 3:46 PM, David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com> wrote:
>
>> (1) I don't think "flex" by itself is a good term for display-inside.  I
>> also agree that "box" is arguably too generic.  You might consider just
>> combining the words flex and box together.
>>
>> display: flex-box
>> display: inline-flex-box
>>
>> The same would apply to other properties, e.g., flexbox-begin not
>> flex-begin.
>>
>
> The original version of Tab's spec used "flexbox". What's you're issue with
> just "flex"? flexbox seems redundant to me.
>
> I guess my objection is more to the property names like flex-begin than to
> the display type.  I think it's important to distinguish between properties
> that apply to the container and properties that apply to children of the
> container.  It is the objects inside the container that actually have flex
> units and therefore flex.  I'd expect to see flex- in front of properties
> that applied to the children of a flexible box and affected flexing in some
> way, and not to the flexible box itself.  Once you change the properties
> that apply to the container to be, e.g., box or flexbox, then I'd expect the
> display type to have the same name for consistency.
>

Adding box to the property name doesn't help me to distinguish whether it
happens on the box or it's children. I could just as easily read
flexbox-begin as applying to this box and not it's children. :)

Are there other cases where CSS distinguishes between properties that apply
to a container versus it's children that this should be consistent with?