- From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:05:03 +0000
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
± From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net] ± Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 9:21 AM ± ± On 04/23/2012 02:32 AM, Anton Prowse wrote: ± > On 29/02/2012 03:58, Alex Mogilevsky wrote: ± >> ± >> With flex, preferred size is the starting point of flexing, often ± >> zero, but that zero is by no means the size the items prefer to get. ± > ± > Perhaps the term "preferred size" is not optimal. What about "initial ± > size"? I accept, though, that there's potential for confusion with ± > "initial value of the main/cross size property". Still, 'flex- ± initial-size' makes more sense to me than 'flex-preferred-size' since, ± as Alex says, 0px unlikely to be the size that the items prefer to get! ± ± Perhaps call it the 'size basis'? Since it the basis of the flexed ± size. I like 'flex-size-basis' or 'flex-base-size' more than 'flex-preferred-size'. Also, it is not a size, it is a length, that confuses pretty much everybody looking at the names for the first time. 'flex-base-length' would be much more appropriate. It would be even better if a single word could describe the concept of basis for flexing... How about 'flex-base' ? or 'flex-basis'? 'origin' would make sense but confusing too. Maybe 'flex-root' ?
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:06:18 UTC