- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 14:06:17 -0800
- To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com> wrote: >> I agree. There is no benefit in having wrapping and direction in one >> property. >> >> It may still be useful to have flex-flow as a shortcut. Should there be >> >> flex-direction: row | column | row-reverse | column-reverse >> flex-wrap: nowrap | wrap | wrap-reverse >> flex-flow: <flex-direction> || <flex-wrap> >> >> ? > > This sounds good to me. I'll make the edits shortly. I've made the edits. Currently I'm maintaining the original grammar of flex-flow, with "<flex-direction> <flex-wrap>?". Should I loosen it as Alex suggests above? Also, now it kinda looks odd that no-wrap is the only keyword that doesn't have a -reverse variant. Should we add one for consistency? I don't see much *use* for it, but if the lack would be confusing, we can fix it simply. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 22:07:05 UTC