- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 10:11:40 +0200
- To: "Ojan Vafai" <ojan@chromium.org>, "David Hyatt" <hyatt@apple.com>, "Alex Mogilevsky" <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, 26 May 2010 10:03:25 +0200, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com> wrote: > Actually "flex" is not a feature of flex-box. It is something that has > effect on blocks when they are inside a flex-box. Although I don't > support extending "flex unit" to CSS in general, it seems reasonable > that "flex" has a meaning elsewhere, e.g. within a flexible grid. That > is probably how the naming got transferred from XUL to begin with. > > A good name would express the way the container positions its children > along one dimention. E.g. "stack". I know that has a different meaning > in XUL but this is not XUL... I wouldn't have a problem with re-using the flex naming for whenever we do "2D flexbox". -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 26 May 2010 08:12:40 UTC