- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 15:39:41 -0700
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 10:28 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> 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). ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2011 22:40:29 UTC