- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 21:24:16 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On May 25, 2010, at 6:17 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com> wrote: >> Given that "box" is shortest and seems to feel like it describes the >> parent and not the child, perhaps we can just keep that? > > The word "box" is already used throughout CSS to just mean "the thing > in CSS that is the equivalent to an element in a DOM tree". I think > trying to use the term "box" to mean "flexbox" as the current draft > does is a big mistake as it overloads the word confusingly. Yeah, I agree. I was thinking that 'display:flex-block' and 'display:inline-flex-block' would make it more consistent and understandable that using the term "box". Because it is a special kind of block or inline-block, right?
Received on Wednesday, 26 May 2010 04:24:56 UTC