- From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 19:30:13 +0000
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
± From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf
± Of L. David Baron
± Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 9:55 AM
±
± Given that people seem to want all of:
± (1) the ability to mix logical and physical directions (which I
± think you were the strongest advocate for)
± (2) the inability to specify logical swaps (which you say you're
± against here)
± (3) the inability to specify combinations that don't compute (i.e.,
± specify 2 vertical directions and no horizontal, or vice-versa)
±
± perhaps the remaining option along this approach is to slightly modify
± Tab's proposal to yield something that works a bit like background-
± position's keyword-percent mixing rules:
We had a side conversation with Fantasai and Tab yesterday and came up with exactly that - mixing rules that eliminate invalid combination at parse time.
Here is the option that we liked:
flex-flow:
[ row | row-reverse | column | column-reverse ] || [ wrap | wrap-reverse ] |
[ horizontal | horizontal-reverse | horizontal-ltr | horizontal-rtl ] &&
[ wrap| wrap-reverse | wrap-down| wrap-up ]? |
[ vertical | vertical-reverse | vertical-ttb | vertical-btt ] &&
[ wrap | wrap-reverse | wrap-left | wrap-right ]?
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Jul/0487.html
Received on Wednesday, 27 July 2011 19:30:52 UTC