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

RE: [css3-flexbox] ED updated: algorithms and 'flex' property

From: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 13:04:47 +0200
Message-ID: <955552.34809.qm@smtp102-mob.biz.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
To: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>, "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
CC: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>, Tony Chang <tony@chromium.org>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
About the naming: what about "neutral size" or "unconstrained size"? 

By that wording, I intend to mean that it's the size the object has if he isn't affected by a strain (either to grow or shrink to fit a constrain). 

We may want to use a similar wording as the one used in civil engineering about the traction-compression of segmented beams, with naming like relative compressibility. If a consistent naming has already been created for a similar purpose, why not reuse it?

Just a thought,

BTW what's the point of having a different neutral size than width*height? It doesn't seems obvious to me.
Received on Monday, 23 April 2012 11:05:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:15 UTC