W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2012

RE: [css3-flexbox] One final round of bikeshedding on property/value names?

From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 01:56:45 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2C86A15F63CD734EB1D846A0BA4E0FC80E77E88C@CH1PRD0310MB381.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
± From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] 
± Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 4:34 PM
± 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.

I actually like "display:flex". "box" suffix is not adding much value. And it doesn't matter if it is intuitive or not -- by the time somebody learns to use it, it will just be a name that is easy to remember.

Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2012 01:57:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:14 UTC