Re: [css3-flexbox] getting multiline flexbox back into the spec

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 7:32 PM, fantasai <> wrote:
>  flex-orientation: rows | columns | horizontal | vertical
>  flex-wrap: no-wrap | wrap | balance*
>  flex-direction: [ forward | backward ] || reverse-stack
> * taken from howcome's balance-lines suggestion, to show how it would be
> added
>  if we decide to add it for flexbox

If we move away from explicit directions like Alex wants, then 'rows'
and 'columns' are definitely the best names yet.

I think flex-wrap is the best way to flag single vs multiple, and I
like how it allows future extension in a clean way.

I still think that flex-direction is a mistake.  You don't want to
control the direction and orientation independently - they are both
just "the direction of the flexbox".  I don't believe there is any
use-case for the two cascading separately.

I want the complete direction of the flexbox to be specified in a
single property, and I think 'flex-direction' is the best name for it.
 I'm not sure what the best names are, though.  As a first draft,
something like this:

flex-direction: [ rows | columns | horizontal | vertical ] [
reverse-flow || reverse-stack ]?
(initial value: 'rows')

By default, flexboxes flow their children and their lines in the
inline-flow and block-flow directions (whichever is appropriate for
each).  Adding 'reverse-flow' makes the children lay out in the
opposite direction, while 'reverse-stack' makes the lines stack in the
opposite direction.

I think it's more obvious and intuitive to just indicate the
directions exactly, like "lr-tb" or "se-ba" (which are equivalent in
English text), but this seems to be less popular. ;_;


Received on Thursday, 9 June 2011 18:40:55 UTC