- From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 04:14:38 +0800
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
(12/04/17 8:02), Brad Kemper wrote: > On Apr 16, 2012, at 4:33 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The Display Value >> =============== >> >> Fantasai and Anton don't like the term "flexbox", as they think it's >> misleading, since it's really the children that are flexible - the >> container element is just a container and is not flexible in and of >> itself normally. They don't have a good suggestion for an alternate >> name, though. >> >> Ojan recommends shortening the name further to just "flex", to match >> the prefix that all the spec's properties have. Last time I tried to recall what the value is, I got lost because 'block' doesn't have the "box" suffix (neither does "inline"). So, yeah, I think dropping the "box" is a good idea. > I like 'flex-group' for the item containing the flexors, and > avoiding overuse of the word "box". 'flex-group' (or 'flex-parent') is > more descriptive of what it is. I think flexbox will eventually reach a stage that everyone doesn't need the name to recall what it is and just hopes the value could have been as short as possible, so I think it's nice that it could be made shorter than "table". Also, "inline-flex-group" is a bit too long, although "inline-flex-group" wouldn't be as common... Cheers, Kenny
Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2012 20:15:06 UTC