- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 10:28:45 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 08/29/2011 04:03 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote: > flex-flow seems really complicated. Unfortunately, I don't have anything new arguments against having so many possible values. > > If we're going to have all these options, we should at least be consistent with writing-mode. Specifically, horizontal-ltr | > horizontal-rtl | vertical-ttb | vertical-btt, should be horizontal-lr | horizontal-rl | vertical-tb | vertical-bt. Well, if we're going with a writing modes analogy (which we are), the "inline" axis will be the the "main axis", and the "block" axis will be the "cross axis". In the 'flex-flow' value 'horizontal-rtl', the 'rtl' is indicating the direction in the main axis, which is analogous to the inline direction. In the 'writing-modes' value 'horizontal-rl', the 'rl' is indicating the direction in the block axis, which is analogous to the cross axis. The 'direction' value of 'rtl' indicates direction in the inline axis. So if we go with main : inline cross : block Then we should have main : inline : rtl cross : block : rl Which is the logic that was put in the draft. You could argue that 'wrap-left' should be 'wrap-rl', though. ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2011 17:29:15 UTC