W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2010

Re: Flexbox Draft, with pictures!

From: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 17:47:37 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTilFabJ2C41dQNA7fF-RpbuGHuBKjEE6XolDEd5u@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 4:34 PM, David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com> wrote:

> On May 25, 2010, at 6:17 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> 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. :)
> All the properties DO apply to the flexbox itself now except for the line
> breaking ones, but I think multiple lines should just be cut.
> By making flex into units and cutting all the multiple line flex stuff, all
> the remaining properties apply to the container only.  That's why I think
> flexbox is a more appropriate term than just flex.

Heh. I come to the exact opposite conclusion. All the properties apply to
the container, so flexbox and flex are really equivalent, one is just more
typing than the other.

Can't you make the same argument for border, padding, margin, float, etc?
Should those have been box-border, box-padding, etc?
Received on Wednesday, 26 May 2010 00:48:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:46 UTC