- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 10:58:31 -0700
- To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com> wrote: > I should have said thank you first for making awesome progress on editing the spec and getting it into shape. Thank you! Thanks! > I don't think we need to discuss impact of syntax changes hypothetically. Let's just start with getting a consensus on syntax between the editors as soon as we can, then it will have a decent shot with WG. I'll write up some options for the pack/align property set and will get back to discuss. It may not even change what you have, I still want to see options and reasoning. Does that sound ok? Sure. > And I agree that grid should have baseline alignment defined, I'll include that as well. Ok. > Is this the only part of the syntax that you wanted to improve? Any other syntax issues that you are not perfectly happy about? I only have four issues with the spec currently: 1. This naming issue with the values for flex-pack/align/line-pack (this thread) 2. Whether we can simplify flex-flow or not (I've started a thread about this) 3. Exactly what "center" means for flex-pack/align/line-pack, and whether we need additional values to help with it (I've started a thread about this too) 4. Whether the layout algorithm is correct/sane (no thread yet) I'd prefer we resolve #1 by keeping the current spec values of start/end/center, as I've argued in this thread. I don't know about #2 yet, but if we don't drop anything, then I'm fine with the current names. Not sure about #3 either, but I'm hopeful we can keep the same values and just tweak the definitions a little. #4 won't affect the syntax, but I need feedback. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 8 September 2011 18:01:10 UTC