- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:05:19 +0000
- To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
[Alex Mogilevsky:] > > ± From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] ± Sent: Monday, April > 16, 2012 4:34 PM ± ± 'flex-align' becomes 'content-align' > ± 'flex-item-align' becomes 'box-align' > ± 'flex-line-pack' becomes 'content-pack' > ± 'flex-pack' becomes 'content-justify' > > I am not a fan of moving to generic properties, I can't say I am perfectly > happy with current naming. 'flex-item-align' and 'flex-line-pack' aren't > the best names I've seen. > > Do we have better ideas, or can we apply Fanatai's thinking within the > "flex-" set? > As a prefix I find 'content' to be especially generic and thus void of meaning. If this property will only impact a specific display type then it is useful and relevant for the name to reflect that. I've found premature naming abstraction to lead to confusion.
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2012 16:06:16 UTC