On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > What would nowrap-reverse do differently from nowrap?
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 22:31:53 UTC