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

I agree, that if it's not a size, it shouldn't have 'size' in its name. BTW, 
some other ideas:

    Flex reference?
    Flex origin?

Flex-root is fine, too.



-----Message d'origine----- 
From: Alex Mogilevsky
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 2:05 PM
To: fantasai ; www-style@w3.org
Subject: RE: [css3-flexbox] ED updated: algorithms and 'flex' property

± 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 14:42:19 UTC