- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 14:59:03 -0800
- To: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
- Cc: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote: >> > On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> 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? >> >> Flip the cross-axis. > > Is there a use-case for this? If not, it's just confusing. Symmetry is not > worth adding confusing options that noone will understand. I don't think it would be particularly confusing, but it would be less clear than wrap-reverse. I was just concerned about whether the *lack* of a -reverse option would be more confusing than having it. If you're comfortable with not having it, so am I. > To be clear, > here's how things would layout on a fixed-width/height flexbox: > wrap: > |AB| > |C | > | | > nowrap: > |AB|C > | | > | | > wrap-reverse: > | | > |C | > |AB| > nowrap-reverse: > | | > | | > |AB|C Yes, this is correct. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 22:59:52 UTC