- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:26:43 -0700
- To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com> wrote: > ± 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? Let's see... flex-align => flex-group-align flex-item-align => flex-align flex-pack => flex-group-justify flex-line-pack => flex-group-pack Or, try it the other way around: flex-align => flex-align flex-item-align => flex-box-align flex-pack => flex-justify flex-line-pack => flex-pack I'm not sure if either of these are actually an improvement over what we currently have. :/ I'm inclined to just keep the current names until we get the proper generic names. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 19 April 2012 18:27:32 UTC