- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 17:12:37 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 04/19/2012 11:17 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Daniel Holbert<dholbert@mozilla.com> wrote: >> I'm not a fan of "display: flex" -- it sounds to me like it's saying >> "this element is flexible". I think we're explicitly trying to avoid >> giving that impression. (since it's the _kids_ that are flexible) >> >> It would also be a little odd / counterintuitive that the "flex" >> property would have no effect on an element with "display:flex", in >> usual circumstances. >> >> 'display: flex-group' sounds better to me. > > I'm not very concerned about people being concerned about > "display:flex" indicating the element itself is flexible - "flexbox" > has the same concern, and people seem okay with that. > > However, it is kinda weird that 'flex' doesn't work on an element with > "display:flex". ^_^ > > Since "flex-group" received several votes, and it addresses fantasai's > and Anton's feedback, I'll switch to that. There was an earlier proposal for a 'flex-group' property IIRC, does this interact all right with that if we decide to add it later? ~fantasai
Received on Friday, 20 April 2012 01:48:25 UTC