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 02:39:12 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2C86A15F63CD734EB1D846A0BA4E0FC80E77E9B4@CH1PRD0310MB381.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
± From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] 
± Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 12:52 PM
± Rename flex-order
± ===============
± fantasai recommends changing flex-order to box-order, for the 
± same reasons as the alignment properties - this property is 
± potentially usable by other layout modes, and if they do, it 
± would be nice to have a more generic name.
± 'box-order' matches the naming convention fantasai established 
± in her suggestion for renaming the alignment properties.

As with other renames, this will make sense when there is a specification that defines the generic property across all its intended use. I am really not comfortable with speculative rename, while we didn’t yet have a serious conversation about ever having that applicable to blocks, lists or tables. 

Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2012 02:40:14 UTC

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