Re: [css3-flexbox] Flexbox Terminology

If we're going to bikeshed on the naming, I'll put in a vote for
display:flex.

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net> wrote:

> On 10/04/2012 08:48, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.<jackalmage@gmail.com>
>>  wrote:
>>
>>  On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 10:56 AM, fantasai<fantasai.lists@**
>>> inkedblade.net <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's an editorial thing that bothers me about Flexbox, which is that
>>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>> terminology is a little inconsistent with what we do elsewhere and with
>>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>> concepts themselves:
>>>>
>>>> The thing that's a container is called a "flexbox", but the boxes that
>>>> actually
>>>> flex are called "flexbox items". Usually we call the container box a
>>>> "container",
>>>> and child boxes are called "boxes", not "items". We don't use "items" to
>>>> refer
>>>> to boxes anywhere else, and I don't see any reason to start a new
>>>>
>>> convention
>>>
>>>> here.
>>>>
>>>> So I'd like to propose that the boxes that flex are called "flexboxes",
>>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>>> the
>>>> containing element be called the "flexbox container".
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't like this change.
>>>
>>> For one, for consistency, it would require us to change the 'display'
>>> value to "flexbox-container", which is much longer than it has any
>>> right to be.
>>>
>>> For two, Grid is using the "X as container, X Item as child" pattern
>>> as well, and I expect that other new layout modes will do the same,
>>> such as in my proposal for Stack Layout.  In Grid (and Stack) the
>>> pattern clearly makes sense - the container *is* a grid (or a stack).
>>> Letting Flexbox match is convenient, and not harmful.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Strictly speaking 'display' in the way it is used now has nothing
>> common with 'flexbox' and 'flexbox-container'.
>>
>> At the moment `display` defines layout behavior of the element
>> *itself* but not its children, it defines requirement of the element to
>> its
>> container:
>>
>> display: inline and inline-block - the element has to be placed inside
>> inlines container;
>> display: table-cell - it has to be placed inside row container;
>> display: block - inside block container;
>> and so on.
>>
>> 'flexbox' (as a value of the display) is pretty strange creature.
>> It is a requirement to *children*.
>> And that contradicts with other display values. Suddenly
>> table-cell cannot contain flexible elements inside.
>> As so list-item and inline-block. I would like to know reasons
>> for such limitation.
>>
>
> Yes, the display values which set up complex layout containers are
> generally describing the display-inside, not the display-outside.
> (display:table is one such value from CSS21.)  I don't see why we couldn't
> have something like display-outside:table-cell;**display-inside:grid in
> future, though.
>
> Regarding the flexbox terminology change, I'm in favour (as fantasai, Tab
> and I discussed briefly whilst attending the Paris F2F).  The point that
> fantasai is making is that "grid" and "table" are terms which clearly
> describe a layout container, whereas "flexbox" _sounds like_ something
> which /participates/ in a layout container.  The problem is that we don't
> seem to be able to come up with a sensible alternative to display:flexbox.
>  I quite like 'flexgroup', personally.  (Tab: you mentioned before that the
> concept of a flex group already existed with a different meaning, but I
> don't see any mention of that in the css3-flexbox draft.)  If we do change
> the display value name, then I think it's fine to refer to the flexbox
> items as "flexboxes", ie drop "item" from the name.
>
> I could live with keeping display:flexbox but I'd strongly prefer to
> rigidly refer to the element on which it is set as a "flexbox container".
>  With that approach, I don't think it's reasonable to refer to the items as
> "flexboxes" since that would be confusing: authors would reasonably think
> that display:flexbox is used to create a flexbox and not the container.  So
> we would have to stick with "flexbox item" or come up with something new;
> how about "flexer"?  (Then, "flexbox" should never be used as a technical
> term anywhere; it would merely be the name of a display value, implicitly
> standing for "flexbox container".)
>
> Personally, I don't much like the use of the word "box" in a display value
> in any case.  ("Box" is an important technical term, so ambiguities should
> be avoided.  It's cumbersome to talk about a "flexbox box", and I don't
> think it's realistic to expect people to use the term "flexbox" to
> consistently refer to the box and not the element.)  So this is another
> point in favour of something like "flexer".
>
> Cheers,
> Anton Prowse
> http://dev.moonhenge.net
>
>