Re: [css3-flexbox] flex-flow bikeshed

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 10:28 AM, fantasai
<> wrote:
> 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.

Oh, you're right.  The writing-mode keywords define both the block and
inline directions at once.  "horizontal-lr" is nonsensical from a
writing-mode perspective - it would indicate that both the inline and
block directions are horizontal.

> 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.

I think it would be *super confusing* if main-axis directions were
like "ltr" and cross-axis directions were like "lr".  That just looks
crazy (and it is, but we're constrained somewhat by legacy in the
current writing-mode and direction properties).


Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2011 22:40:29 UTC